Fredin v. Miller

Background

The court considered three motions filed in three related cases. Brock Fredin represented himself. The defendants were Lindsey Middlecamp, Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Marie Schaefer, and Jamie Kreil.

The motions concerned the court’s November 23, 2020 sanctions order. That 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 noncompliance could result in additional penalties.

The court stated that the First Amendment does not protect harassment and intimidation directed at opposing parties, their counsel, or the court. Fredin had appealed the sanctions order but stated that he would not comply with its directives. The opinion says he continued creating websites and videos while his requests for relief were pending.

Motion to Vacate

Fredin moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate the sanctions order. Rule 60(b) permits relief from an order in limited circumstances, including when an order is void or when another reason justifies relief. The court explained that this rule is not a substitute for a direct appeal or a way to repeat arguments already made.

Fredin argued that the sanctions order violated his First Amendment and due-process rights. He also argued that some videos were protected parody or satire and that additional procedures were required before the court could prohibit his conduct. The court concluded that these arguments either had already been raised or could have been raised earlier. It also concluded that the underlying facts—what the websites and videos contained, when they were posted, and that Fredin posted them—were not disputed. Because the remaining question was legal, the court held that due process did not require an evidentiary hearing or a jury trial.

The court denied Fredin’s motion to vacate.

Motion to Stay

Fredin also moved to stay, or pause, the sanctions order while his appeal was pending. The opinion states that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had already denied his emergency request for a stay and that this court had previously denied a stay request as well.

The court concluded that the possibility of contempt proceedings resulting from Fredin’s failure to comply did not provide the circumstances required to reconsider the earlier stay ruling. The court also stated that Fredin had not properly sought reconsideration under the local rules.

The court denied Fredin’s motion to stay.

Order to Show Cause and Additional Sanctions

The defendants asked the court to issue an order to show cause—an order requiring Fredin to explain why he should not be held in contempt—and to impose additional sanctions. The court found that Fredin had repeatedly stated that he would not comply with the sanctions order and that he had not complied with it.

The court gave Fredin one additional opportunity to comply. It ordered him to file, two weeks after entry of the order, a declaration stating whether he had removed the websites and videos and, if not, explaining why. If the material remained online, the court stated that it would enter a sanctions order. Potential sanctions could include a daily fine, attorney fees and costs resulting from the contempt, and referral to the United States Attorney’s Office for possible criminal-contempt proceedings.

The court granted in part and deferred in part the defendants’ motions for an order to show cause and sanctions. It deferred ruling on Middlecamp, Miller, and Schaefer’s request for attorney fees. The opinion states that the defendants’ pro bono representation did not prevent a possible fee award.

Sealing Order and Disposition

The court granted Kreil’s request to seal Exhibit B to Fredin’s supporting declaration because the exhibit reproduced material that the court had previously ordered sealed. Because Exhibits A and B were filed together, the clerk was directed to seal the entire declaration. Fredin could publicly refile Exhibit A but could not publicly refile Exhibit B.

Judge Susan Richard Nelson therefore denied Fredin’s motion to vacate, denied his motion to stay, granted in part and deferred in part the defendants’ motions for an order to show cause and sanctions, and ordered the filing containing the exhibits sealed.