Evans v. Krook

Background

William O. Evans, Jr., acting as trustee for the heirs and next-of-kin of Benjamin Evans, brought federal and Minnesota state-law claims against Brian Jeffery Krook, Michelle Folendorf, Joshua Ramirez, Michael Ramos, Dan Starry, and Washington County. The complaint alleged that law-enforcement defendants used deadly force against Benjamin Evans and failed to accommodate his mental-health disability, resulting in his death in April 2018. The opinion states that the plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed the Minnesota state-law claims.

The order addressed three groups of motions: defendants’ motion seeking an order to show cause, discovery enforcement, and sanctions; the plaintiff’s competing motion to compel discovery and seek sanctions; and the parties’ joint motions concerning continued sealing of court records.

Defendants’ discovery and sanctions motion

The court had previously ordered the plaintiff to supplement specified interrogatory answers, document-production responses, and initial disclosures by January 7, 2022. The plaintiff served the supplementation on January 12, five days late. The court found that the responses were also deficient because they did not clearly identify all responsive documents, state whether documents were being withheld based on objections, or provide the computations and supporting documents for claimed damages.

The court therefore granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion. It denied defendants’ request for fees and costs incurred in obtaining the earlier December 2, 2021 discovery order. The court reasoned that defendants had voluntarily withdrawn their earlier sanctions request after the parties conferred and that it would be unjust to allow defendants to revive that request later.

The court granted defendants’ request for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in enforcing the December 2 order and bringing the sanctions motion. Defendants were required to submit a declaration stating the amount sought. The plaintiff could dispute that amount within the deadlines specified by the order.

The court had already granted defendants’ request to compel some supplementation and denied other portions as moot after the plaintiff provided additional discovery. The court did not make a final ruling on all issues concerning the plaintiff’s Rule 26 disclosures or defendants’ request for civil contempt. Those issues were reserved for a June 2, 2022 hearing on a later sanctions motion.

Non-economic damages

Defendants had asked the court to prevent the plaintiff from suggesting a specific amount of emotional-distress or other non-economic damages to the jury unless he disclosed the required computation and supporting basis. The court noted that the plaintiff had identified substantial figures for categories including “Care, Comfort, Guidance, and Support,” “Loss of Life,” and punitive damages, but had not supplied the required computations. The court stated that it would address the related damages-disclosure issues in connection with defendants’ later sanctions motion rather than resolve them fully in this order.

Plaintiff’s discovery and sanctions motion

The plaintiff sought an order requiring defendants to identify people listed in an amended privilege log and to produce emails or documents withheld under claims of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. Defendants had already supplemented their disclosures to identify the listed individuals before the plaintiff filed his motion. The court therefore denied as moot the request to compel that supplementation.

The court found that the emails in Priv019 and Priv020 had been produced, including their attachments, and denied the plaintiff’s request concerning those emails. It also denied the plaintiff’s request for production of Priv003 through Priv007 and Priv013 through Priv018. The court held that those emails were protected by the work-product doctrine, which generally protects materials prepared because of anticipated litigation, and that the plaintiff had not shown the substantial need required to obtain ordinary work product.

The court found that defendants reasonably anticipated litigation by at least July 23, 2019, before the complaint was filed, based on a news article reporting that plaintiff’s counsel had been retained and defendants’ evidence that counsel was then retained to investigate potential claims and defenses. The court rejected the argument that the emails were ordinary business records merely because they predated the filing of the lawsuit.

For Priv001 and Priv002, emails concerning legal advice, strategies, mental impressions, and talking points, the court ordered defendants to submit the emails for private judicial review. This review would allow the court to decide whether attorney-client privilege or work-product protection had been waived. The court did not order production of those emails at this stage.

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion. The only relief granted was the private review of Priv001 and Priv002. The court denied the plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs because he had not sufficiently conferred with defendants before filing the motion and because much of the requested relief was already moot or unsupported.

The court granted defendants’ request for fees and costs incurred in opposing the plaintiff’s motion, subject to a reduction recognizing that the court had ordered review of Priv001 and Priv002. Defendants were required to submit a fee declaration, and the plaintiff could dispute the amount under the deadlines in the order.

Sealing motions

The court granted the joint sealing motions as specified in the order. It ordered several docket entries unsealed, allowed other entries to remain sealed because they contained confidential health or identifying information, and ordered redacted public versions of several additional entries. Docket Entries 111 and 147-9 were to be unsealed. Docket Entry 110 was to remain sealed because it duplicated previously filed material. Docket Entries 147-6, 147-7, 147-8, 147-10, 147-11, 147-12, and 147-15 were to remain sealed, but redacted versions were required to be publicly filed.

Disposition

Defendants’ Motion for Order to Show Cause, Motion to Compel, and to Seek Sanctions was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and to Seek Sanctions was granted in part and denied in part. The parties’ Joint Motions for Continued Sealing were granted. The order reserved the decision on certain Rule 26 disclosure issues and defendants’ request for a civil-contempt proceeding.