Fredin v. Middlecamp

Background

Brock Fredin represented himself in three related defamation actions against Lindsey Middlecamp; Grace Elizabeth Miller and Catherine Marie Schaefer; and Jamie Kreil. The actions arose from social-media posts concerning sexual-assault allegations. Fredin alleged that Middlecamp and Miller and Schaefer defamed him by posting or repeating an allegation that he sexually assaulted another woman. He alleged that Kreil defamed him in connection with an affidavit filed in the Middlecamp and Miller-Schaefer litigation.

During the lawsuits, Fredin filed documents and created websites and videos containing inflammatory accusations against defendants, their lawyers, judges, jurors, and court personnel. The court previously found him to be a vexatious litigant and issued an injunction requiring him to remove specified websites and videos and prohibiting substantially similar online accusations against the defendants, their counsel, or Magistrate Judge Bowbeer. Fredin later told the court that he had removed the required material, but the court found that five specified websites remained accessible.

The defendants sought sanctions, including a $500 daily fine and attorneys’ fees. Fredin opposed the request and argued that the defendants had not shown a willful violation of the injunction. The court did not consider newer websites and videos for purposes of this order because it found that the underlying cases were closed and the newer material was not created to obtain favorable settlements or judicial decisions.

Rulings on the Motions

The court granted the defendants’ Joint Renewed Motion for Order to Show Cause. It found that the five websites remained accessible even though the prior injunction required their removal. The court also found that Fredin’s sworn statement claiming compliance was untruthful and made in bad faith. As a sanction, the court ordered Fredin to pay the defendants $12,490.80 in attorneys’ fees. The order did not impose the requested $500 daily fine.

The court denied Fredin’s Motion for Sanctions. His request for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure failed procedurally because he had not first served the defendants with the required detailed notice and 21-day opportunity to correct the alleged violation. The court also rejected the motion on the merits, finding that the defendants’ sanctions motion was not baseless and that a reasonable lawyer could have interpreted the prior injunction to cover the challenged conduct. The court likewise denied Fredin’s request for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

The court treated Fredin’s second Motion to Disqualify District Judge as a request to reconsider its earlier denial of judicial disqualification. It denied that motion because Fredin identified neither a clear legal or factual error nor newly discovered evidence, and the judge stated that she was not biased. The court denied Fredin’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Kreil as untimely, finding that he waited 15 months after learning of the law firm’s representation and that granting the motion would prejudice Kreil by depriving her of counsel at a late stage.

Other Dispositions and Final Order

Because the court denied the motion to disqualify counsel, it denied Fredin’s Motion to Stay as moot. The court granted the defendants’ request to seal Documents 171 and 182. It denied the defendants’ request to prohibit Fredin from filing future pleadings without permission.

The final order therefore: (1) denied Fredin’s Motion for Sanctions; (2) denied his Motion to Disqualify District Judge; (3) denied his Motion to Disqualify Counsel; (4) denied his Motion to Stay as moot; (5) granted the defendants’ motion to seal Documents 171 and 182; (6) denied the defendants’ motion to require permission before future filings; and (7) granted the defendants’ Joint Renewed Motion for Order to Show Cause and ordered Fredin to pay $12,490.80 in attorneys’ fees. Judge Susan Richard Nelson signed the order.