Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The defendant objected to Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s April 1, 2022 order denying the defendant’s motion to amend, alter, or correct other orders. The requested amendment concerned a July 1, 2021 deadline for motions to compel discovery. The defendant wanted to renew a request for financial records from purported absent class members—people included in the proposed class but not named as plaintiffs.

The scheduling order required the plaintiffs to supplement financial and employment records for named plaintiffs created since June 15, 2018. It denied, without prejudice, the defendant’s request for comparable financial records from purported absent class members. The order required motions to compel or for a protective order concerning the specified written discovery to be filed by July 1, 2021. It also required other motions concerning supplemental fact discovery to be filed by March 1, 2022, and stated that discovery generally could not occur after February 28, 2022, without court permission.

The defendant moved on March 14, 2022, to amend the scheduling order so she could renew the absent-class-members financial-record request. She argued that depositions completed shortly before the motion gave her additional information showing the relevance of bank records. Magistrate Judge Thorson found that the defendant had not shown good cause because she could have sought an extension before the July 1, 2021 deadline, could at least have sought relief before the March 1, 2022 deadline, and had not shown that the deposition information was different from information already known or available. The magistrate judge therefore denied the motion.

The Objection

The defendant argued that the magistrate judge improperly treated the earlier denial without prejudice as effectively final. She contended that she could not have renewed the request before obtaining deposition testimony, that the March 1 deadline did not apply to a motion to compel subject to an earlier deadline, and that the requested records were relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendant had failed to meet both deadlines and had not explained why she could not move earlier. They also argued that the requested discovery was duplicative and unnecessary.

Court’s Analysis

A district court may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court described this as an extremely deferential standard. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The primary measure of good cause is the moving party’s diligence in attempting to comply with the scheduling order.

Judge Frank agreed with Magistrate Judge Thorson that the defendant had not shown the required good cause. The record indicated that the defendant had, or should have had, enough information to renew her request before July 1, 2021. The defendant also did not explain how the deposition information differed from information already known or available, or why she did not ask the court before the deadline to preserve the ability to renew the request if later testimony produced something unique.

The court also held that the March 1, 2022 deadline was relevant. The scheduling order stated that, except for motions required to be filed earlier, other motions relating to supplemental fact discovery had to be filed by March 1. The court read that date as a definitive end date for motions concerning supplemental fact discovery and found that the defendant did not act diligently when she knowingly disregarded it.

The court noted that Magistrate Judge Thorson had referred to an extraordinary-circumstances requirement under a local rule, but explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) requires good cause, not extraordinary circumstances. The court nevertheless concluded that the motion was properly denied because the defendant had failed to show good cause.

The court further stated that, even if it considered the defendant’s arguments about fairness and the underlying discovery request, the request for absent class members’ financial records would remain denied. Based on the record, the court could not conclude that the request was proportional to the needs of the case or that the information sought was not duplicative of information already available.

Disposition

The court overruled the defendant’s objection to Magistrate Judge Thorson’s April 1, 2022 order. It affirmed that order in its entirety, including the denial of the defendant’s motion to amend, alter, or correct other orders.