Lindell v. United States of America
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:22-cv-02290
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Lindell v. United States, Judge Wright denied expedited handling because Plaintiffs delayed seeking warrant materials and set an October 19 hearing.
The ruling affected Michael Lindell and MyPillow, Inc.’s request to accelerate their motion for warrant application materials, and set the response deadline and hearing schedule for Defendants.
What happened
In Lindell v. United States, Michael Lindell and MyPillow, Inc. asked the court to speed up their request for materials used to obtain a search warrant. They said they needed those materials before an October 19 hearing about Lindell’s seized cellphone and related claims.
The court found that Plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient reason to shorten the ordinary schedule. Plaintiffs had sought relief concerning the cellphone and warrant materials earlier but did not request the warrant application materials in their initial request for emergency relief. The court therefore denied the motion to expedite.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright set October 14 as Defendants’ deadline to respond to the underlying request for warrant materials and scheduled that request for argument before Judge Eric C. Tostrud on October 19. The order did not decide whether Plaintiffs were entitled to obtain the materials.
The detailed version
- Lindell v. United States of America · No. 0:22-cv-02290
- Eric Tostrud
- Oct. 6, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs Michael Lindell and MyPillow, Inc. alleged that Defendants obtained and executed a search warrant that led to the September 13, 2022 seizure of a cellphone belonging to MyPillow and used by Lindell. The complaint asserted violations of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments and sought, among other relief, return of the cellphone, restrictions on access to its data, and disclosure of the affidavit submitted to obtain the warrant.
Plaintiffs later filed an emergency motion seeking return of the cellphone and restrictions on access to its data, with a hearing scheduled for October 19, 2022. On October 4, Plaintiffs filed a separate motion asking the court to require Defendants to provide materials submitted to obtain the warrant. They also filed the motion at issue here, asking the court to handle that request on an expedited basis so Plaintiffs could prepare for the October 19 hearing.
Analysis
The court applied District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1, which generally requires a non-dispositive motion—one that does not finally resolve a claim—to be filed at least 14 days before the hearing, with the opposition due seven days later. The court noted that it could set a different schedule for good cause, meaning a sufficient reason supported by the circumstances.
The court found that Plaintiffs had not shown good cause. Plaintiffs had been seeking return of the cellphone and alleging an ongoing violation of Lindell’s First Amendment rights since filing the complaint. They also had not explained why they waited to seek the warrant application materials until two weeks after filing their emergency motion and shortly before Defendants’ response was due. The court therefore declined to expedite the motion for those materials.
Order
The court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Handling of Motion to Obtain Warrant Application Materials. It set October 14, 2022, as Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ underlying motion and scheduled argument on that motion for October 19, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud. The order did not resolve the underlying request for access to the warrant materials or the merits of Plaintiffs’ broader claims. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.