Spottswood v. Washington County

Background

Shawn Clarke Spottswood sued Washington County MN and Deputy Sarah Peulen based on the investigation and prosecution of a 2015 Minnesota burglary-tools charge and his detention at the Washington County Jail. The opinion states that a jury convicted Spottswood after a March 2017 trial, but the state trial court later granted his request for a judgment of acquittal because the State had not met its burden on the intent element. The State voluntarily dismissed its appeal before briefing.

Earlier in this federal case, the court dismissed Spottswood’s claims against Judge Tad Jude, Judge Gary Schurrer, prosecutor Tom Wedes, and unnamed Washington County Jail employees. It also dismissed any claim against Washington County based on vicarious liability for Deputy Peulen’s alleged unconstitutional conduct. Claims against Peulen for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation and state-law claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and wrongful imprisonment were allowed to proceed. Washington County remained in the case for potential vicarious liability based on Peulen’s alleged state-law violations.

Motion to Amend

Spottswood filed a three-page document that the court construed as a Motion to Amend. He sought to put Wedes back in the complaint, add Judges Jude, Schurrer, and “judge Richard illka” for liability, sue Peulen in both her individual and official capacities, assert Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims, and explain his damages request. He did not provide the proposed amended pleading or a version showing the proposed changes, as required by the District of Minnesota’s local rule.

The court denied the Motion to Amend. It reasoned that the requested amendment would improperly circumvent the earlier order dismissing certain defendants and claims. The court also found that Spottswood had not explained why claims against the judges and Wedes would not be futile after their earlier dismissals on immunity grounds. The court further relied on Spottswood’s repeated opportunities to correct pleading problems and his delay in seeking to sue Peulen in her official capacity.

Defendants also asked for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court denied that request because Defendants had not filed a separate sanctions motion and it did not appear they had given Spottswood the required 21-day opportunity to withdraw his Motion to Amend.

Motion to Quash Subpoenas

Defendants moved to quash two subpoenas seeking the entire criminal case file and electronically stored information, tangible items, and other stored information. One subpoena was directed to Washington County’s sheriff’s department and/or Deputy Peulen; the other was directed to the Washington County attorney and prosecutor Tom Wedes.

The court rejected Defendants’ argument that the subpoenas were too vague. It found that Spottswood’s request for the case file was understandable and that Defendants’ privilege arguments showed they understood what he was seeking.

The court also declined to rule that the entire criminal case file was protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. It explained that portions of the file might be protected, but the record did not identify the file’s contents sufficiently for the court to determine that any particular document was protected.

A subpoena under Rule 45 is generally used to obtain discovery from a nonparty, while a Rule 34 request is the usual method for obtaining documents from a party. The court ruled that Wedes, who had been dismissed from the case, was a third party, but that the subpoena to him should be quashed because the case file appeared obtainable from Washington County, which remained a party. Rather than quash the subpoena to Washington County and Deputy Peulen and require Spottswood to start over with a Rule 34 request, the court converted that subpoena into a Rule 34 request. The Motion to Quash Subpoenas was therefore granted insofar as the subpoena to Wedes was quashed and granted insofar as the subpoena to Washington County and Deputy Peulen was converted into a Rule 34 request; the motion was otherwise denied.

The court ordered Defendants to respond to the Rule 34 request within 30 days of the order, consistently with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants could object based on attorney-client privilege or work-product protection if they had an appropriate basis.

Other Rulings and Schedule

The court denied Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees related to responding to the subpoenas. It also extended the fact-discovery deadline to May 3, 2021, solely to allow Washington County to respond to the Rule 34 request. The deadline for nondispositive motions was extended to June 3, 2021, the dispositive-motion deadline was extended to July 2, 2021, and the case was set to be ready for trial by November 1, 2021. All other parts of the pretrial scheduling order remained unchanged.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright signed the order. The opinion also states that District Judge Michael J. Davis had adopted the earlier order and recommendation in July 2020.