Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The court considered Defendant Jodi Harpstead’s Motion for Sanctions or, alternatively, to Amend the Scheduling Order. Harpstead argued that Plaintiffs Tenner Murphy, by his guardian Kay Murphy, Marrie Bottelson, and Dionne Swanson had failed to obtain sufficient documents from third-party providers under the court’s Limited Supplemental Discovery Scheduling Order. The alleged deficiencies included failing to subpoena a complete list of third parties and failing to diligently follow up with providers.

Harpstead requested permission to obtain additional third-party documents, an order requiring Plaintiffs to pay the costs of serving the subpoenas, and an amendment allowing depositions after the additional documents were received. Plaintiffs opposed the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 37 allow sanctions or other appropriate orders when a party fails to follow a discovery or scheduling order. The earlier supplemental discovery order required Plaintiffs to serve Rule 45 subpoenas for certain post-June 15, 2018 records involving the named Plaintiffs and nine purported absent class members. The order did not expand discovery beyond areas covered during the original discovery period.

The court concluded that Plaintiffs’ service of 24 subpoenas was consistent with the language of the supplemental discovery order and with the parties’ prior discovery. Plaintiffs’ interpretation of their obligations was therefore substantially justified, and their actions were not sanctionable. The court also stated that any challenge to Plaintiffs’ performance during the original discovery period was untimely.

The court found that Harpstead had not acted diligently in challenging the list of subpoenaed entities. Plaintiffs provided copies of the subpoenas in February 2021 and made an initial production in May 2021. The court stated that Harpstead could have raised concerns in February, after the May production, at a June 2021 status conference, or by July 1, 2021. The court rejected Harpstead’s argument that she could not determine whether the subpoenas were sufficient until September.

Ruling and scheduling directives

The court DENIED Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions or, in the Alternative, to Amend the Scheduling Order. It did not permit further third-party discovery or require Plaintiffs to pay subpoena costs. The existing provision barring discovery after February 28, 2022, unless the court grants permission, remained in effect.

Separately, the court amended the supplemental discovery schedule to allow depositions that had previously been noticed for December 2021 and January 2022 but placed on hold by Harpstead. Those depositions could be taken through February 18, 2022. The court ordered defense counsel to provide available dates, required the parties to meet and confer and file a joint stipulation, and required Harpstead to serve amended deposition notices. All other provisions of the earlier supplemental discovery order remained in full force and effect.

The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson.