Fredin v. Middlecamp

Background

The order addresses three motions filed across three related cases: Brock Fredin’s motions to vacate and stay an earlier sanctions order, and the defendants’ motions for an order requiring Fredin to show why he should not be held in contempt and for additional sanctions.

The earlier sanctions order found that Fredin had created websites and videos in a bad-faith effort to harass and intimidate the defendants, their lawyers, and the court. It required Fredin to remove the websites and videos and warned that failure to comply could result in further penalties. Fredin appealed that order but told the court he would not follow its directives. The opinion states that he continued to create material about the judge and counsel after the sanctions order.

Motion to Vacate

Fredin sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits a court in limited circumstances to relieve a party from an order. He argued that the sanctions order violated his First Amendment and due-process rights and that some of his videos were protected parody or satire.

The court denied the motion to vacate. It held that Rule 60(b) could not be used to reargue issues that had already been addressed or to replace a direct appeal. The court also rejected Fredin’s argument that due process required a jury trial or an evidentiary hearing. Because Fredin did not dispute what the websites and videos contained, when they were posted, or that he posted them, the court treated the issue as a legal question. The court stated that the parties had submitted declarations and legal arguments, which provided the process required under the circumstances.

The court also granted Jamie Kreil’s request to seal Exhibit B to Fredin’s supporting declaration because the exhibit reproduced material the court had previously ordered sealed. The final order directed the clerk to seal the entire declaration because Exhibits A and B were combined in one document, while allowing Fredin to publicly refile Exhibit A if he chose.

Motion to Stay

The court denied Fredin’s motion to stay the sanctions order. It noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had denied an earlier emergency stay request and that this court had previously denied Fredin’s request for a stay.

The court concluded that Fredin had not properly sought reconsideration under the local rules and had not shown the compelling circumstances required for reconsideration. The possibility of contempt proceedings resulting from his noncompliance did not justify another stay.

Order to Show Cause and Sanctions

The court granted in part and deferred in part the defendants’ motions for an order to show cause and sanctions. It ordered Fredin to file, two weeks after entry of the order, a declaration stating whether he had removed the websites and videos as required. If he had not, he had to state the reasons. The defendants were allowed two weeks after that declaration to respond.

The court deferred ruling on Middlecamp, Miller, and Schaefer’s request for attorney fees. It warned that continued refusal to comply could result in additional contempt sanctions, including a daily fine, attorney fees and costs, and referral to the United States Attorney’s Office for possible criminal contempt proceedings. The order did not impose those additional sanctions at that time.

Classification and effect

This is a procedural order because it denied motions seeking to vacate or stay an earlier order and addressed contempt, sanctions, and sealing. It did not decide a new underlying claim. The order’s operative dispositions were: Fredin’s motion to vacate was denied; Fredin’s motion to stay was denied; the defendants’ motions for an order to show cause and sanctions were granted in part and deferred in part; and the specified filing was sealed.