Kruse v. Elk River, City of, The

Background

Kelsey Ann Kruse brought claims against the County Defendants and the City and Police Defendants, among others, including civil-rights, negligence, and wrongful-death claims. The opinion concerns discovery disputes, not the merits of those underlying claims.

The County Defendants served interrogatories and requests for production of documents. They argued that Kruse’s interrogatory answers were untimely and deficient and that she had not responded to the document requests. They described multiple efforts to obtain complete responses, including letters, emails, telephone calls, and conferences.

The City and Police Defendants similarly served interrogatories and document requests. They asserted that Kruse provided untimely interrogatory answers, did not respond to their document requests, and did not fully supplement answers to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28.

Kruse did not file a responsive memorandum, affidavits, or exhibits for either motion and did not request an extension. The court therefore canceled the scheduled May 2, 2023 hearing and considered the motions without oral argument.

Discovery rulings

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) allows a party to ask the court to compel discovery when another party fails to answer interrogatories or produce documents. The court found that Kruse’s failure to respond to the motions independently supported granting them. After reviewing the motions, supporting materials, discovery requests, and interrogatory answers, the court also found that the requests were relevant, proportional to the needs of the case, and not unduly burdensome.

The court granted the County Defendants’ Rule 37(a) motion to compel discovery. It ordered Kruse to serve complete responses and documents to their request for production of documents on or before May 5, 2023.

The court granted the City and Police Defendants’ motion to compel discovery and seek sanctions. It ordered Kruse, within 10 days of the order, to serve complete responses and documents to their request for production and to fully supplement her answers to the specified interrogatories.

Attorney’s fees and possible sanctions

The court ordered both groups of defendants to file affidavits within 14 days describing the time reasonably spent on their motions, requested hourly rates, expenses, and other facts relevant to attorney’s fees. Kruse could file objections within seven days after the affidavits were filed. The order did not determine the amount of fees.

The court warned that continued failure to comply with discovery obligations could result in additional remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney’s fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment. Those consequences were warnings about possible future action, not additional sanctions imposed by this order.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung canceled the May 2 hearing, granted the County Defendants’ motion to compel, granted the City and Police Defendants’ motion to compel and seek sanctions, ordered the required discovery responses, and established procedures for determining any reasonable attorney’s fees. The Clerk’s Office was also directed to terminate the County Defendants’ duplicate motion.