Hari v. Smith

Background

Emily Claire Hari, who was representing herself, brought claims against more than 20 law-enforcement and corrections officials. She alleged that the defendants violated her constitutional rights and federal and state wiretapping laws by collecting and reviewing recordings of privileged telephone calls, interfering with privileged legal mail and legal materials, and monitoring information on a computer she used at the Sherburne County Jail.

The order addressed six discovery-related motions: Hari’s motion for a protective order; Defendant Beth Visel’s motion to stay discovery; the Federal Defendants’ motion to stay discovery; and three motions by Hari to compel production of a video, documents, and documents plus answers to interrogatories.

Protective order

Hari requested a protective order because discovery could include confidential, private, or privileged material. The court found that she had shown good cause for a protective order, but determined that the Privacy Act Order and Protective Order proposed by the Federal Defendants, with court modifications, would better facilitate discovery of confidential information than Hari’s proposed order.

The court therefore granted in part and denied in part Hari’s motion for a protective order. A separate protective order was to issue. The court also stated that the order would not give any party unilateral authority to make final confidentiality decisions and that the parties must follow the procedures in the protective order and the local rule governing filings under seal.

Motions to stay discovery

Beth Visel and the Federal Defendants asked to pause discovery involving them until the court resolved their motions to dismiss. Hari opposed both requests. The court declined to deny Visel’s motion based on the absence of a meet-and-confer statement, while reminding the parties to follow the district’s local rules.

The court found that pausing discovery was appropriate. It relied on the burden and expense of broad factual discovery, judicial efficiency, and its view that the motions to dismiss filed by Visel and the Federal Defendants had substantial merit. The court granted Visel’s motion and the Federal Defendants’ motion. Discovery was stayed as to those defendants until their motions to dismiss were resolved.

Motion to compel viewing of video

Hari sought a video allegedly showing corrections officer Rachel Clem taking Hari’s legal mail without sealing it in Hari’s presence. The Sherburne County Defendants argued that allowing Hari to view the video would threaten jail security because it showed multiple camera views, staff-only areas, blind spots, and exits. They also argued that the video was protected security information under Minnesota law and that a written summary sufficiently answered Hari’s request.

The court found that the defendants had timely responded to Hari’s request and had properly supplemented their disclosure. The court nevertheless granted in part and denied in part Hari’s motion to compel production of the video. It found the video relevant and proportional to Hari’s claims about the handling of her legal mail. The court concluded that the security concerns did not outweigh the video’s relevance under the circumstances described in the order, including Hari’s transfer away from the Sherburne County Jail.

The court ordered the Sherburne County Defendants to arrange Hari’s viewing of the video within 30 days, in coordination with the Livingston County Jail and, if applicable, an attorney representing her. Hari could view the video only at a reasonable time and place and while supervised or observed by an approved facility representative or a licensed attorney retained by her. She could not copy or reproduce the video and could not communicate information about staff-only areas, blind spots, or exits to anyone except a retained licensed attorney.

Motions to compel documents and interrogatory answers

Hari sought computer and access logs for the self-help computer she used at the Sherburne County Jail. The Sherburne County Defendants stated that no such logs existed for Hari. The court accepted the explanation that logs had been manually created for another inmate, Dontay Reese, because of issues specific to his computer use, but that no manual logs were created for Hari and that the computer did not automatically generate the requested reports. Because the court would not order production of records that did not exist, it denied Hari’s motion to compel production of documents.

Hari also sought documents and answers to interrogatories from the Federal Defendants. Because discovery as to those defendants had been stayed, the court denied that motion as well.

Disposition

The order states that Hari’s motion for a protective order was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Beth Visel’s motion to stay discovery was GRANTED, and the Federal Defendants’ motion to stay discovery was GRANTED. Hari’s motion to compel production of video was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Her motion to compel production of documents was DENIED, and her motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories was DENIED. The order did not decide the merits of Hari’s underlying claims.