Wilder v. Horihan
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:22-cv-00006
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Wilder v. Horihan, Judge Foster denied Kathryn Wilder’s requests for appointed counsel and a protective order.
Kathryn Wilder was denied appointed counsel and a blanket protective order against discovery of her health and tax information; the defendants remained able to seek relevant, proportional discovery under the court’s stated rules.
What happened
In Wilder v. Horihan, Kathryn Wilder asked the court to appoint a lawyer and protect her from discovery requests seeking her health and tax information. She also asked for immunity and, if those requests were denied, to end the case, but this order addressed only the requests for appointed counsel and a protective order.
The court said civil litigants do not have an automatic right to appointed counsel and found that the case did not appear legally or factually complex enough to justify appointing one at that time. It also found that Wilder’s health information could be relevant to her disability-discrimination claims and that her tax information could be relevant to her claims for lost wages and underpayment. Because Wilder had not provided enough detail to show that the discovery was improper, the court declined to block it generally.
Judge Dulce J. Foster denied both Wilder’s request for appointed counsel and her request for a protective order covering discovery of her health and tax information.
The detailed version
- Wilder v. Horihan · No. 0:22-cv-00006
- Nancy Brasel
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
Kathryn Wilder filed a statement making several requests, including appointment of a lawyer and protection from providing health and tax information. The court interpreted the statement as requesting non-dispositive relief: appointment of counsel and a protective order concerning discovery. The order did not address any potentially dispositive motions that might have been included in the statement.
Wilder’s complaint largely alleged that the defendants discriminated against her under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by accusing her of having serious mental-health issues. She also alleged lost wages and underpayment. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without prepaying fees or costs.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that civil litigants do not have a 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 conflicting testimony is likely to be important.
The court recognized Wilder’s desire for a lawyer but concluded that the case did not appear factually or legally complex. It also found no current basis to conclude that Wilder could not investigate the facts or present her arguments. Although conflicting testimony might arise later, the court said that possibility did not outweigh the other factors. It therefore denied appointment of counsel at that time.
Protective Order
A protective order can limit discovery when necessary to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The court found that Wilder’s statement did not describe the discovery requests in enough detail to show that they were objectionable.
The court also found that the requested information appeared potentially relevant. Health information could bear on whether Wilder was a qualified individual under the ADA who could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Tax records could be relevant to her claims for lost wages and underpayment. Because the record did not show that the requests were overbroad, disproportionate, or intended to harass or embarrass her, the court declined to provide blanket protection for all of Wilder’s health and tax information.
Disposition
The court denied Wilder’s request for appointment of counsel and denied her request for a protective order concerning discovery of her health and tax information.
The opinion’s supplied metadata identifies Nancy Brasel as the judge, but the order itself is signed by Dulce J. Foster, a United States Magistrate Judge; this summary follows the judge who signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.