Daywitt v. Harpestead
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:20-cv-01743
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Daywitt v. Harpestead, Judge Bowbeer granted in part and denied in part the request, ordering one 60-minute video or telephone call monthly.
The named plaintiffs are allowed one 60-minute video or telephone conference call each month for the remainder of the lawsuit; the defendants and facility administrators are affected by that accommodation order.
What happened
In Daywitt v. Harpestead, the plaintiffs asked the court to require weekly video conferences, or weekly telephone conferences, so they could communicate about and prepare this lawsuit. One plaintiff had moved from the Moose Lake facility to the St. Peter facility, separating him from the other plaintiffs.
The defendants argued that the request was not authorized by a civil-procedure rule and should be treated as a request for a preliminary injunction. The court disagreed that it was a preliminary-injunction request because it concerned managing the litigation. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not shown actual interference with their mail communications or a need for weekly calls, while the court had to consider the facility officials’ responsibility for security and administration.
Judge Bowbeer granted in part and denied in part the motion. For the rest of the lawsuit, the named plaintiffs must be allowed one 60-minute video or telephone conference call each month.
The detailed version
- Daywitt v. Harpestead · No. 0:20-cv-01743
- Nancy Brasel
- May 2, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking weekly communication by video conference, or alternatively by telephone, to coordinate their work on the lawsuit. After the case began, Plaintiff Kenneth S. Daywitt moved from the Moose Lake facility to the secure treatment facility at St. Peter, while the other plaintiffs remained at Moose Lake. The plaintiffs said that relying on postal mail made it harder to communicate and coordinate and harmed their ability to litigate and prepare for trial.
Arguments and analysis
The defendants argued that the motion was not authorized by or recognized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They alternatively treated it as a request for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order requiring action before final judgment, and argued that the requested relief was unrelated to the claims and that the factors governing such relief weighed against it.
The court concluded that the motion was not a preliminary-injunction request because it sought action related to managing the litigation. The court relied on its earlier ruling that the plaintiffs had no constitutional right to require special accommodations from the defendants to help them litigate. The court also noted that the plaintiffs acknowledged they could communicate through the postal service, and that Daywitt had told defense counsel he could communicate with the Moose Lake plaintiffs by having a third party leave a voicemail.
The plaintiffs raised concerns that facility mail policies might give defendants access to mail exchanged among the plaintiffs or cause transferred materials to be treated as contraband. But the court found that the plaintiffs had not provided evidence of actual disruption or interference with their case-related communications. The court nevertheless considered its interest and obligation under Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to manage the case for a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution. It balanced the possible delays from relying only on mail against the public interest in deferring to officials responsible for operating and securing the facility.
Disposition
The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a need for weekly teleconferences. It noted that Daywitt and other co-plaintiffs had previously received an order allowing a monthly teleconference in a separate case, and that no one had indicated that the monthly accommodation was inadequate or impracticable. The court therefore ordered a similar accommodation here.
The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Allow Weekly Communication Via Video-Teleconferencing. The named plaintiffs were to be allowed one 60-minute video or telephone conference call each month during the remainder of the lawsuit.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.