Fredin v. Kreil

Background

The opinion addresses motions in three related defamation cases brought by Brock Fredin against Lindsey Middlecamp, Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Marie Schaefer, and Jamie Kreil. The lawsuits arose from social-media posts concerning sexual-assault allegations. Fredin represented himself; the defendants were represented by counsel.

During the litigation, Fredin filed documents containing inflammatory remarks about defendants, their families, lawyers, and court personnel. He also created websites and videos that disparaged people involved in the litigation. In a November 23, 2020 order, the court found Fredin to be a vexatious litigant and issued a preliminary injunction under the court’s inherent authority to address abuses of the judicial process. The injunction required him to remove specified websites and videos and prohibited substantially similar online accusations against the defendants, their counsel, or Magistrate Judge Bowbeer.

The court previously ordered Fredin to show whether he had removed the websites and videos. Fredin filed a declaration stating that he had removed them. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the relevant orders, and the Supreme Court denied Fredin’s petition for review. Defendants later filed a renewed sanctions motion after identifying websites that remained accessible.

Defendants’ Renewed Sanctions Motion

Defendants sought sanctions for violations of the injunction, including a $500 daily fine and attorneys’ fees. The court confirmed that five websites identified in the earlier sanctions order remained accessible. Because the court had ordered those websites removed, it found that Fredin was violating the injunction. The court also found the violation especially serious because Fredin had filed a sworn declaration stating that he had complied with the order. The court concluded that Fredin had not been truthful with the court and had acted in bad faith.

The court granted Defendants’ Joint Renewed Motion for Order to Show Cause and ordered Fredin to pay $12,490.80 in attorneys’ fees. The court did not consider the parties’ arguments about newly created websites and videos for purposes of this order because the cases were closed and the Eighth Circuit had affirmed the earlier orders.

Fredin’s Motion for Sanctions

Fredin sought sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Defendants’ renewed sanctions motion was baseless and contained false accusations. Rule 11 permits sanctions for filings made for an improper purpose or without adequate legal or factual support. Before filing a Rule 11 sanctions motion with the court, the moving party generally must serve it on the opposing party and provide at least 21 days to correct the alleged violation.

The court denied Fredin’s motion. It held that Fredin had not served the required notice, so the motion was procedurally defective. The court also rejected the motion on the merits, finding that Defendants’ sanctions motion was not baseless and that a reasonable and competent attorney could have interpreted the earlier injunction to cover the conduct at issue. To the extent Fredin sought sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the court denied that request for the same reasons.

Motion to Disqualify the District Judge

Fredin moved to disqualify the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Because he had previously sought the judge’s disqualification, the court treated the new motion as a request to reconsider the earlier denial. Fredin argued that the judge should recuse herself because she knew a lawyer at the Robins Kaplan firm, because Lindsey Middlecamp allegedly had appeared before the court as an Assistant United States Attorney, and because the judge was biased against him.

The court denied the motion. It found that Fredin had not identified a clear legal or factual error in the earlier ruling and had not presented newly discovered evidence warranting a different result. The court also stated that it was not biased against Fredin.

Motion to Disqualify Counsel

Fredin sought to disqualify the Robins Kaplan law firm, alleging that he had previously had an attorney-client relationship with the firm concerning the same matters and that the firm had disclosed confidential information to Defendants. The court denied the motion as untimely. Defense counsel had filed for Kreil as early as October 1, 2020, but Fredin waited 15 months to seek disqualification. The court found that allowing the motion at that stage would prejudice Kreil by depriving her of counsel after substantial preparation.

Motion to Stay and Other Requests

The court denied Fredin’s motion to stay as moot because it denied his motion to disqualify the law firm. The court granted Defendants’ request to seal Documents 171 and 182. It denied Defendants’ request to prohibit Fredin from filing future pleadings without prior court permission.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that Fredin’s motion for sanctions, motion to disqualify the district judge, and motion to disqualify counsel were denied. His motion to stay was denied as moot. Defendants’ motion to seal Documents 171 and 182 was granted; their motion to restrict Fredin’s future filings was denied; and their Joint Renewed Motion for Order to Show Cause was granted, with Fredin ordered to pay $12,490.80 in attorneys’ fees.