Berry v. Hennepin County

Background

The plaintiffs filed two motions asking the defendants to provide additional discovery. One motion concerned the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board (MPRB). The other concerned the City of Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey, and former Minneapolis Chief of Police Medaria Arradondo, whom the order collectively refers to as the City. The requested discovery included documents, answers to interrogatories, and testimony from organizational witnesses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The court held a hearing on December 12, 2022, while fact discovery was scheduled to close on March 30, 2023.

Under Rule 26, discovery must concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportionate to the needs of the case. A party may also answer an interrogatory by identifying business records from which the answer can be determined, but it must identify those records specifically enough for the requesting party to find them.

Rulings on the motion against the City

The court denied the request for electronically stored information created after 2021. It found that the request conflicted with the established deadline for substantial completion of document production and would require an unduly burdensome and disproportionate ongoing search. The City had agreed to produce certain later materials that could be located without ongoing electronic searches, including 2022 policies and procedures, body-camera footage from encampment closures beginning October 20, 2021, and a supplemental list of encampment closures. The court also overruled a blanket objection to testimony about 2022, allowing deposition topics about 2022 and later policies, procedures, regulations, body-camera footage, and encampment closures if preparing for the testimony did not require a search for later electronic information.

The court denied the request for supplemental answers to Interrogatories 9 and 10 concerning shelter availability. The City said it relied on Hennepin County and Adult Shelter Connect for that information, did not operate shelters or generate independent shelter data, and that the information was equally available to the plaintiffs.

The court granted the motion concerning Interrogatories 4–6, 12, and 20. The City had improperly referred the plaintiffs generally to its entire production of approximately 24,000 documents. The City was ordered to identify by Bates number the documents responsive to those interrogatories. The court did not require further answers to Interrogatories 19 and 23, which broadly asked the City to identify all documents concerning property removed from encampments and evidence that criminal activity decreased after encampment sweeps. The court found those requests effectively sought to have the City categorize its entire document production.

The court denied the request for a further answer to Interrogatory 17 about the process for helping encampment residents pack and move their property. The City had answered that individuals generally had two to six hours to pack their belongings and move off site, and the City would be bound by that answer.

The court ordered the City to supplement its responses to Requests for Production 1–4 and 6–16 and Interrogatory 25 if it located additional responsive documents or information. It denied most requested testimony on deposition Topics 1 and 2. Topic 1 concerned the City’s document-retention and discovery methods, which the court found were not at issue and would largely duplicate information already provided. Topic 2 was too broad and burdensome, although the plaintiffs could ask whether the City adopted statements in declarations or regarded them as statements only of the individual declarants.

For revised Deposition Topic 25, the court required testimony about specified City communications concerning the individual plaintiffs, their status as unhoused people and public-benefits recipients, and ZACAH, but required removal of the phrase “including but not limited to.” For Topic 28, the court found the City’s knowledge about the availability and conditions of safe, alternative shelters relevant and proportionate. The City had to testify about information it already knew, but did not have to learn information it did not already possess.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for expenses and fees from the City. Although the motion was granted in part and denied in part, the court found that the parties’ positions were not unjustified and that counsel had acted professionally and collegially.

Rulings on the motion against the MPRB

The court ordered the MPRB to supplement its answer to Interrogatory 12 with responsive information from 2021 and 2022 concerning orders, training, and procedures for clearing encampments. It also ordered the MPRB to remove the phrase “but does not limit to” when referring to body-camera footage. The court did not require the MPRB to provide the substance of every verbal order through the interrogatory response.

The court permitted the MPRB to supplement its answer to Interrogatory 13. The MPRB offered to amend its answer to state “never,” reflecting its position that every encampment that received notice was eventually swept. The court denied the request to compel a different substantive answer.

The court ordered the MPRB to supplement its answer to the interrogatory about the process for helping encampment residents pack and move their property to a safe, alternative shelter. If no such packing-support process existed, the MPRB had to say so. The court denied the request for additional details about the complaint process for challenging MPRB staff conduct, holding the MPRB to its existing answer that anyone could file a complaint about alleged misconduct.

For MPRB Deposition Topics 1 and 2, the court incorporated its rulings on the corresponding City topics. The MPRB did not have to provide broad testimony about its discovery methods or explain potentially any word or phrase in its discovery responses, although the plaintiffs could ask whether the MPRB adopted statements in individual declarations.

The court granted the motion concerning Deposition Topic 26 to the extent the MPRB would provide a witness about whether force, chemical sprays, or warrantless searches were used to deprive encampment residents of property. The court also granted the motion concerning Topic 43. The MPRB had to provide testimony about its process for allowing encampment residents to challenge or oppose an impending sweep, including issues involving possible property deprivation, notice, and official policies.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for expenses and fees from the MPRB for the same reasons given regarding the City. The order ultimately stated that the plaintiffs’ motion against the MPRB was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and that their motion against the City, Mayor Frey, and former Chief Arradondo was also GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as described above. United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty signed the order.