Laughlin v. Stuart
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-02547
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Laughlin v. Stuart, Judge Leung denied Michael B. Hari permission to seek reconsideration after finding no compelling circumstances or meaningful meet-and-confer.
Michael B. Hari, the other plaintiffs and defendants in the case, their counsel, and the court’s handling of the litigation.
What happened
In Laughlin v. Stuart, Michael B. Hari asked for permission to seek reconsideration of an earlier order concerning confidential document designations. The court had previously denied his motions without prejudice because the parties were still discussing the designations.
Hari argued that compelling circumstances existed because defense counsel had been slow to respond to his letters and requests to discuss the dispute. The court found that Hari had sent many filings and discovery requests, sometimes allowed too little time for responses, and had not shown that a genuine discussion about a court motion had occurred.
Magistrate Judge Leung denied Hari’s request for permission to file a reconsideration motion. The court left its earlier orders in effect and warned that continued violations of court rules or orders could lead to sanctions or other remedies.
The detailed version
- Laughlin v. Stuart · No. 0:19-cv-02547
- Eric Tostrud
- Apr. 9, 2021
Background
On August 24, 2020, the court denied without prejudice Michael B. Hari’s motions to change the confidential designation of documents. The court found those motions premature because the parties were still conferring about the designations. Hari then asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider that decision.
Hari’s Request
Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j), a party may seek permission to file a reconsideration motion only by showing “compelling circumstances.” Hari argued that such circumstances existed because he had tried to meet and confer with defense counsel since July 18, 2020 and counsel had generally been unresponsive.
Court’s Analysis
The court reminded defense counsel to respond as promptly as possible to Hari’s correspondence. It nevertheless found that much of the delay resulted from Hari’s own conduct. Hari had sent numerous letters, discovery requests, motions, and other filings, including a letter raising 28 items for discussion. The docket also showed that he had sent four letters to the court on August 31, 2020.
The court further found that Hari sometimes did not allow enough time for responses. For example, he complained that counsel had not responded within five days to materials mailed from a detention facility. The court stated that mail from such a facility can take multiple days to arrive and that expecting a response within five days was unreasonable.
The court also concluded that Hari’s July 18 letter was not evidence of a proper meet and confer. A meet and confer is a genuine, good-faith discussion about a dispute that a party intends to present to the court. Although Hari labeled the letter a meet-and-confer request, the letter only asked counsel to explain why certain documents had been designated confidential. It did not indicate that Hari intended to challenge the designations or seek relief from the court.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung held that Hari had not shown compelling circumstances or demonstrated that a meaningful meet and confer had taken place. The court therefore denied Hari’s request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration.
The order stated that all prior consistent orders remained in effect. It also warned that failure to comply with the order or earlier consistent orders could result in appropriate remedies, including costs, fines, attorney’s fees, waiver of objections, limits on evidence, summary denial of motions, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or whole or partial default judgment. The court did not impose those additional remedies in this order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.