Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The court reviewed Defendant Jodi Harpstead’s objections to two orders issued by Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. The first was a February 10, 2021 Limited Discovery Scheduling Order. The second was a February 17, 2021 Order/Notice to Attorney.

The parties had previously been allowed limited additional discovery because of the passage of time and the plaintiffs’ request for prospective injunctive relief. The plaintiffs identified three named plaintiffs and nine other class members as potential trial witnesses. Harpstead sought approximately 35 additional depositions involving those people and others connected to them, as well as employment and financial records created since June 15, 2018 for the named plaintiffs and other class members.

Judge Thorson instead allowed each side 20 additional depositions. She required the plaintiffs to supplement the record with certain employment and financial records for the named plaintiffs, but denied without prejudice Harpstead’s request for those records concerning the other class members. After the plaintiffs decided not to call one of the other class members as a trial witness, Judge Thorson’s February 17 notice relieved the plaintiffs of their duty to subpoena documents concerning that person.

Parties’ arguments

Harpstead argued that Judge Thorson had not applied the governing discovery standards and that limiting supplemental discovery to 20 depositions per side improperly restricted her ability to investigate the plaintiffs’ claims. She also argued that the plaintiffs should not be relieved of obtaining information about the former potential witness without explaining the change in circumstances.

The plaintiffs argued that Judge Thorson had broad discretion to manage discovery and that 20 additional depositions per side—after each side had already been allowed 20 fact depositions—was sufficient. They also argued that the requested employment and financial records were not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case and that information about a person they no longer planned to call at trial was not relevant to the remaining issues.

Court’s analysis

A district court may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s nondispositive discovery order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court described this as an extremely deferential standard.

The court found no legal error in limiting supplemental discovery to 20 additional depositions per side. Each party had been allowed a total of 40 fact depositions, which the court described as nearly four times the usual number in a civil case. The court also found that Harpstead had not made the particularized showing needed to establish why the specific additional depositions were necessary during the limited supplemental discovery period.

The court noted that the denial of Harpstead’s request for additional employment and financial records concerning the other class members was without prejudice and did not prevent her from seeking those records later if necessary.

The court declined to treat the plaintiffs’ letter about the former potential witness as a motion to amend or reconsider the February 10 order. Because the plaintiffs no longer intended to call that person as a trial witness, the court held that Judge Thorson’s decision to relieve the plaintiffs of the subpoena obligation conformed to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Harpstead had not shown that discovery from a person who would not be called as a trial witness was relevant to the remaining issues.

The court also agreed that the February 10 order misstated the parties’ stipulation about documents created after June 15, 2018. It directed that order to be amended to correct the typographical error.

Disposition

The court overruled Harpstead’s objections to both magistrate judge orders. It affirmed the February 10 Limited Discovery Scheduling Order with the stated typographical amendment and affirmed the February 17 Order/Notice to Attorney.