Laughlin v. Stuart
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-02547
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Laughlin v. Stuart, Magistrate Judge Leung denied Michael Hari’s motion, ruling that his waiver removed confidentiality from documents filed elsewhere.
Michael Hari and the county defendants involved in the protective-order dispute; the order also continued to govern the other parties and counsel subject to the court’s prior orders.
What happened
In Laughlin et al. v. Stuart et al., Michael Hari asked the court to stop the use of certain documents and punish county defendants for allegedly violating a protective order. The documents had been produced during discovery in this case and later filed publicly in another case after Hari signed a waiver of confidentiality.
The court ruled that the waiver clearly gave up Hari’s confidentiality interest in the documents. It found that the county defendants did not violate the protective order and that sanctions were not warranted. The court therefore denied Hari’s motion.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued the June 7, 2021 order. The order also stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect and listed possible remedies for future violations of the court’s orders.
The detailed version
- Laughlin v. Stuart · No. 0:19-cv-02547
- Eric Tostrud
- June 7, 2021
Background
The court considered Michael Hari’s verified emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and sanctions for violating a protective order. The court treated the filing as a motion to enforce the protective order rather than as a request to preserve the status quo while the lawsuit was pending.
The protective order governed confidential information produced during discovery. It allowed parties to designate documents as confidential and limited their use to this case. It also required reasonable efforts to protect confidential documents, while explaining that the order itself did not authorize filing documents under seal.
The county defendants had produced documents bearing Bates numbers 1600–1603 and 1799–1800 in response to discovery requests. They classified the documents as confidential because they contained nonpublic inmate and security information under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
Hari’s criminal-defense counsel later subpoenaed materials from the county defendants’ counsel. The county defendants’ counsel stated that the materials would be disclosed after Hari waived confidentiality. Hari then signed a written waiver stating that she waived her right to confidentiality in the requested data and understood that the materials would be conveyed to her criminal-defense counsel. The county defendants subsequently produced the documents to that counsel.
The county defendants later filed a motion to dismiss in a separate case involving Hari and publicly filed the documents as attachments or referenced materials. After receiving Hari’s motion in this case, they refiled the documents under temporary seal.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a party may be sanctioned for violating a discovery order, including a protective order. Hari admitted signing the waiver but argued that it only allowed the documents to be transferred to her criminal-defense team and did not change their confidential designation.
The court rejected that interpretation. It found the waiver’s first sentence clear: Hari waived her right to confidentiality in the requested data. The court also concluded that the second paragraph described the disclosure to her criminal-defense counsel but did not limit the broader waiver in the first paragraph.
The court stated that Hari signed the waiver so she could use and file the documents in a separate legal matter. Because she had waived her confidentiality interest, the documents were declassified and could be filed in other litigation. The court noted that filing the documents under seal would have been more prudent, but it found no violation of the protective order and determined that sanctions were not warranted. The court did not decide whether the communications were protected by attorney-client privilege or whether Hari waived that privilege.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that Hari’s motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and sanctions for violating the protective order was DENIED. The court stated that all prior consistent orders remained in full force and effect. It also warned that failure to comply with the order or other prior consistent orders could lead to remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney’s fees, evidentiary limits, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.