Medcqm v. United States Department of State

Background

Max A Medcqm filed this lawsuit and later amended his complaint twice. He asserts multiple claims concerning alleged experiences at the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. The United States Department of State had filed a motion to dismiss claims against the agency and its employees sued in their official capacities; that motion was pending before U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank.

Medcqm filed a document titled “Motion for Leave to File Motion to Preserve Evidence.” He sought permission to request preservation of camera footage and interview notes relating to an August 2, 2021 appointment at the embassy. He argued that the evidence was important to a fair resolution of the case and could be lost, destroyed, or misused.

Reasons for the ruling

The State Department argued that the filing was procedurally improper because Medcqm did not comply with Local Rule 7.1. That rule requires a party seeking court action to meet and confer with the opposing party in a good-faith effort to resolve the issue and to file specified materials, including a meet-and-confer statement. The State Department also argued that the request was premature because the parties did not yet know whether any claims would remain after the pending motion to dismiss.

The court determined that Medcqm’s filing was a motion because it was labeled a motion and requested a court order. The court rejected his argument that the rules did not apply because he was only asking for permission and was representing himself. The court explained that people representing themselves must still follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District of Minnesota’s local rules, and the court’s orders.

The court found that Medcqm did not file or later provide a meet-and-confer statement and did not comply with the other requirements of Local Rule 7.1. It therefore denied the motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a) and (b).

The court also addressed the request’s substance. The State Department represented that it knew of its preservation obligations, had issued a litigation hold and preservation notice in November 2023, and had taken steps to preserve potentially relevant evidence. The court found no basis on the record to conclude that the State Department had failed to comply with those obligations. This provided an additional reason to deny the motion.

Disposition

The order states that Medcqm’s Motion for Leave to File Motion to Preserve Evidence was DENIED. The court stated that the denial was without prejudice to any party’s ability to bring an appropriate discovery motion after Judge Frank ruled on the motion to dismiss, if the case proceeded to discovery and the parties first conferred as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.