Sorenson v. State of Minnesota

Background

The defendants moved for discovery sanctions, an order compelling discovery, and changes to the scheduling order. The plaintiff, Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli, did not respond. Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster later issued a Report and Recommendation and Order recommending that the defendants’ sanctions motion be granted in part, based in part on Meranelli’s willful failure to comply with discovery obligations.

Meranelli did not timely object. The district court then found no error in Judge Foster’s proposed findings and conclusions and accepted the recommended disposition of the defendants’ motion.

Motion to file out of time

Meranelli subsequently moved for permission to file a response to the defendants’ motion out of time. She cited COVID-19 illness and isolation, asked the court to consider both sides’ positions, pointed to her status as a self-represented litigant, and argued that allowing the response would not prejudice the defendants.

Court’s analysis

The court denied the motion. It concluded that the request implicitly sought to vacate and reconsider the earlier decision on the defendants’ sanctions motion. The court explained that reconsideration is allowed only to correct a clear legal or factual error or to present newly discovered evidence, and found that Meranelli’s motion and supporting documents did not present circumstances compelling reconsideration.

The court acknowledged that COVID-19 symptoms can interfere with meeting deadlines, including for people in custodial settings such as prisons or involuntary civil commitments. But it found that Meranelli did not explain why her illness or isolation prevented her from asking for more time after receiving the defendants’ motion. The court also noted that she did not identify a reason she could not object to Judge Foster’s recommendation, or seek more time, before the district court adopted it.

The court further rejected Meranelli’s claim that a late response would not prejudice the defendants. The existing sanctions order barred her from introducing information supporting her claims that the defendants had requested but she failed to produce in discovery. According to the court, reopening that evidentiary record would disrupt the defendants’ justified expectations, require reworking the scheduling order near the deadline for summary-judgment motions, and unjustifiably prolong the litigation.

Disposition

The court ordered that Meranelli’s Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, to Compel Discovery, and to Modify Scheduling Order Out of Time and Notice was DENIED.