Smartmatic USA Corp. v. Lindell
- John Docherty
- 0:22-cv-00098
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 20
In Smartmatic v. Lindell, Judge Docherty granted in part, denied in part, and denied as moot in part Smartmatic’s discovery motion and denied defendants’ motion.
Smartmatic USA Corp., Smartmatic International Holding B.V., and SGO Corporation Limited must receive the discovery ordered by the court. Michael J. Lindell and My Pillow, Inc. must provide specified information and supplemental responses, but need not create certain records or produce the election technology and source code covered by the ruling.
What happened
Smartmatic USA Corp., Smartmatic International Holding B.V., and SGO Corporation Limited sued Michael J. Lindell and My Pillow, Inc., alleging defamation and violations of Minnesota’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on statements about Smartmatic’s election technology. The court was deciding the parties’ competing requests for additional discovery, not the truth of those statements or the ultimate claims.
Judge Docherty ordered defendants to provide specified information, including programs and republication details, some information about promotional codes and revenue, Lindell’s responsibilities at My Pillow, and explanations about documents withheld under objections. The court limited or declined other requests, including creation of a new log of oral conversations, and did not require Smartmatic to produce election technology or source code that it did not possess or control.
Judge John F. Docherty granted in part, denied in part, and denied as moot in part Smartmatic’s motion to compel, as described in the order, and denied defendants’ motion to compel. The order addressed discovery only and did not decide the underlying defamation or deceptive-trade-practices claims.
The detailed version
- Smartmatic USA Corp. v. Lindell · No. 0:22-cv-00098
- John F. Docherty
- Aug. 1, 2023
Background
Smartmatic alleged that Michael J. Lindell falsely stated that Smartmatic’s voting technology helped rig the 2020 presidential election in favor of President Joseph Biden. Smartmatic sued Lindell and My Pillow, Inc. for defamation and violations of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The district court had previously denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. During discovery, both sides asked the court to require the other side to provide additional information or documents.
The court explained that discovery must concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportionate to the case’s needs. It also discussed the requirements for answering interrogatories and responding to requests for production, including the requirement that an objection state whether responsive materials are being withheld.
Smartmatic’s Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses
The court granted Smartmatic’s motion as to Interrogatory No. 1, enforcing a limitation developed during the parties’ discussions. Defendants must provide electronic copies of the specified programs that reference Smartmatic, information about when and where the programs were released, and republication information within defendants’ possession, custody, or control.
As to Interrogatory No. 9, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Defendants do not have to create a new log of oral conversations with former President Trump, his administration, his campaign, or the Republican National Committee. They must provide any pre-existing log of oral communications in which Smartmatic was mentioned during the specified period. The court found that requiring defendants to reconstruct all such conversations would be disproportionate.
The opinion states that the court denied as moot Smartmatic’s motion as to Interrogatory No. 9 because defendants represented that they had or would provide metrics data. Because the surrounding discussion identifies the metrics request as Interrogatory No. 15, the opinion appears to contain an internal numbering inconsistency.
The court granted Smartmatic’s motion as to Interrogatory No. 18a only in part. Defendants must identify My Pillow employees, or third parties acting at My Pillow’s or Lindell’s direction, who helped create or develop the specified promotional codes. They do not have to identify employees who merely used the codes or unaffiliated third parties.
The court granted Smartmatic’s motion, as modified, as to Interrogatory No. 19. Smartmatic must first identify the promotional codes and deals used in the programs, broadcasts, and appearances at issue. Defendants must then provide the revenue generated from those identified codes and deals.
The court granted Smartmatic’s motion as to Interrogatory No. 22. Defendants must fully describe Lindell’s responsibilities as My Pillow’s chief executive officer and as chairman of its board of directors. The court found that merely identifying those positions was not a complete answer.
Requests for Production
The court granted Smartmatic’s motion regarding Requests for Production Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 28. Defendants must provide supplemental signed responses explaining whether they are withholding responsive documents based on their objections and describing the limits used in searching for responsive materials.
The court denied defendants’ motion as to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 8, and 10. Those requests sought access to Smartmatic election technology, including hardware, software, source code, and examples of products used during the 2020 presidential election. The court found that Smartmatic had credibly stated it did not possess or control the requested materials. It also found that the burden of producing the source code outweighed its potential relevance and that defendants could seek information through other means, including a subpoena to Los Angeles County.
The court denied Smartmatic’s request for discovery concerning documents relating only to Dominion Voting Systems. Although such documents might have some relevance to Lindell’s knowledge about a possible relationship between Dominion and Smartmatic, the court found that the speculative benefit did not justify the effort required to produce them.
Disposition
The court granted in part, denied in part, and denied as moot in part Smartmatic’s motion to compel interrogatory responses, as described in the order. The court denied defendants’ motion to compel production. The order resolved discovery disputes and did not enter a ruling on the merits of Smartmatic’s claims.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.