Sorenson v. State of Minnesota
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:21-cv-00671
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Sorenson v. State of Minnesota, Judge Menendez accepted sanctions partly limiting evidence but denied dismissal, striking the pleadings, and fact-finding requests.
Plaintiff Cherrity Meranelli is barred from introducing certain information supporting her claims, while the case remains pending because the court denied dismissal and the requests to strike the pleadings.
What happened
Sorenson v. State of Minnesota concerned defendants’ request for discovery sanctions against Plaintiff Cherrity Meranelli. A magistrate judge recommended granting that request in part and denying it in part.
The court barred Meranelli from offering evidence supporting her claims if the defendants had requested the information and she had not produced it during discovery. It denied the requests to dismiss the case, strike the complaint and amended complaints, and make findings of fact.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez accepted the recommendation after reviewing it for clear error because no party objected.
The detailed version
- Sorenson v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:21-cv-00671
- Katherine Menendez
- Jan. 19, 2023
Background
The court reviewed a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on November 21, 2022. The recommendation addressed the defendants’ motion for discovery sanctions. No objections were filed by either side within the permitted period.
Because there were no objections, Judge Menendez reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues. The court found no error after reviewing the recommendation.
Ruling
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation and ruled that the defendants’ motion for discovery sanctions was granted in part and denied in part.
The court granted the evidentiary portion of the motion by precluding Plaintiff Cherrity Meranelli from offering into evidence information supporting her claims that the defendants had solicited from her and that she had failed to produce in discovery.
The court denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the case with prejudice. It also denied their requests to strike the complaint and amended complaints and to make findings of fact.
Effect of the Order
The order imposed a discovery-related evidentiary restriction but did not dismiss the case, strike the pleadings, or grant the request for findings of fact. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.