Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

This order concerns the defendant’s objection to Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s January 11, 2022 order. That earlier order denied the defendant’s motion for sanctions or, alternatively, to amend the limited supplemental discovery scheduling order.

The supplemental discovery order required each side to produce certain documents created after June 15, 2018, and required the plaintiffs to serve subpoenas for specified records from third-party service and housing providers. It required motions to compel concerning written discovery to be filed by July 1, 2021. The plaintiffs notified the defendant about 24 third-party subpoenas in February 2021 and produced documents from subpoenaed providers in May and September 2021. The defendant later identified additional third parties and argued that the plaintiffs had not obtained enough records or diligently followed up with providers.

Parties’ Arguments

The defendant argued that the plaintiffs had failed to produce relevant case-management, housing-provider, and service-provider records. She sought permission to obtain additional documents from third parties, reimbursement of subpoena costs, and an amendment to the discovery schedule allowing depositions after the documents were received. She argued that the magistrate judge’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

The plaintiffs argued that they had complied with the supplemental discovery order, that the order did not expand the scope of the original discovery, and that the defendant had not acted diligently. They also argued that the additional discovery was not proportional to the needs of the case.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the magistrate judge’s order under the deferential standard applicable to nondispositive matters. Under that standard, the district court could modify or set aside the order only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

The court agreed that the defendant knew by February 18, 2021, which third parties the plaintiffs intended to subpoena. The defendant did not raise concerns by the July 1, 2021 deadline for motions to compel and did not raise them until after the supplemental disclosures. The court therefore agreed that the defendant had not diligently raised the issue.

The court also agreed that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the supplemental discovery order was substantially justified and that their conduct was not sanctionable. The order did not expand the scope of the original discovery, and the court deferred to Magistrate Judge Thorson’s interpretation of her own order. The court further held that Magistrate Judge Thorson acted within her discretion to manage discovery proportionally, particularly given the volume of documents already produced and the need to keep the case on schedule.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank overruled the defendant’s objection. He affirmed in its entirety Magistrate Judge Thorson’s January 11, 2022 order denying the defendant’s motion for sanctions or, alternatively, to amend the scheduling order. This opinion addressed discovery management and did not decide the underlying claims.