Sorenson v. State of Minnesota

Background

The plaintiff moved for a protective order to prevent the defendants from taking her deposition, which was scheduled for September 29, 2022. She argued that the defendants had not obtained required court permission, that the deposition was harassment, that it would seek irrelevant or inadmissible information, and that it would put her at an unfair disadvantage. She also asked the court to appoint counsel for the rest of the case.

The plaintiff was civilly detained at the Minnesota Moose Lake Sex Offender Program Facility. She argued that the federal rule requiring court permission before deposing a person confined in prison should apply to her. The court noted that whether this rule applies to civil detainees appeared to be an issue the courts had not previously resolved in this setting. The court did not decide that question.

Protective Order

The court explained that a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) requires the moving party to show good cause with specific facts demonstrating annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or expense. The court found that the plaintiff had not made that showing.

The court reasoned that the defendants had a legitimate interest in learning the facts supporting the plaintiff’s claims, and that the plaintiff should not be surprised by a deposition about the allegations she had filed. The plaintiff’s claim that the deposition would seek inadmissible evidence did not establish good cause because discovery may cover relevant, nonprivileged information that is proportional to the needs of the case; it is not limited only to evidence that would be admissible at trial.

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s claim that confinement made the process unfair. The court had previously given her instructions for issuing deposition notices and obtaining subpoenas, and she did not claim that she had tried to conduct depositions or that the defendants had obstructed her discovery efforts.

The court therefore granted the defendants permission to depose the plaintiff to the extent permission was required under Rule 30(a)(2)(B). It did so without deciding whether that permission requirement applied to her as a civil detainee.

Appointment of Counsel

The court stated that civil litigants have no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Appointment is discretionary. Relevant considerations include the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to investigate and present the claims, and whether the evidence is likely to conflict.

The court concluded that the action did not appear factually or legally complex and that the plaintiff was able to investigate the facts and present her arguments. The court also noted that the case had survived dismissal even though the plaintiff was representing herself. It found that her limited understanding of the legal system and limited access to assistance, standing alone, did not justify appointing counsel.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and to appoint counsel. Judge Dulce J. Foster signed the order on September 28, 2022.