Wilder v. Horihan
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:22-cv-00006
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Wilder v. Horihan, Judge Foster denied Wilder’s requests for appointed counsel and blanket protection against discovery of her health and tax information.
Kathryn Wilder, who was denied appointed counsel and a protective order; and the defendants, Amy Horihan and Nystrom and Associates Human Resources Director, who were not barred from seeking relevant health and tax information in discovery.
What happened
Wilder v. Horihan concerned Kathryn Wilder’s requests for a lawyer and protection from discovery requests seeking her health and tax information. The court treated her docket statement as motions for those forms of relief.
The court said civil litigants do not have an automatic right to appointed counsel and found that the case did not currently appear too complex for Wilder to investigate or present herself. It also found that her health information could relate to her disability-discrimination claims and that her tax information could relate to her lost-wage and underpayment claims.
The court denied both requests. Judge Dulce J. Foster said the record did not show that the discovery requests were improper, overly broad, or disproportionate, but the order did not address any possible motions for final relief contained in Wilder’s statement.
The detailed version
- Wilder v. Horihan · No. 0:22-cv-00006
- Nancy Brasel
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
Kathryn Wilder filed a docket statement asking for immunity from being sued, a lawyer, and protection from having to provide her health and tax information. She also asked that the case be dissolved if those requests could not be granted. The court construed the statement as including a motion to appoint counsel and a motion for a protective order concerning discovery of her health and tax information. The order stated that it did not address any motions for final relief that might be inferred from the statement.
The court had previously allowed Wilder to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Wilder’s complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants discriminated against her under the Americans with Disabilities Act by accusing her of having serious mental-health issues. She also alleged lost wages and underpayment.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Appointment is discretionary, and relevant considerations include the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to investigate and present the claims, and whether conflicting testimony is expected.
The court recognized Wilder’s request but found that the case did not currently appear factually or legally complex. It also found no basis to conclude that she lacked the ability to investigate the facts or present her arguments. Although conflicting testimony could arise later, the court found that possibility did not outweigh the other considerations.
Protective Order
A protective order is a court order limiting discovery to prevent annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Wilder’s statement did not describe the discovery requests in enough detail for the court to determine whether they were objectionable.
The court also concluded that the requested information appeared relevant. Wilder’s mental-health status could bear on whether she was a qualified individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act who could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Her tax records could be relevant to determining damages for alleged lost wages and underpayment. The court found no information showing that the discovery requests were overly broad, disproportionate to the needs of the case, or intended to embarrass or harass her.
Order
The court denied Wilder’s request for appointment of counsel. It also denied her request for a protective order concerning discovery of her health and tax information. Judge Dulce J. Foster did not issue a blanket order protecting that information from discovery.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.