Jensen et al v. Minnesota Department of Human Services et al

Filing 400

ORDER. Defendants' request for clarification of the Court's January 9, 2015 Order and an extension of time (Doc. No. 398 ) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/19/2015. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James and Lorie Jensen, as parents, guardians,
and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen; James
Brinker and Darren Allen, as parents,
guardians, and next friends of Thomas M.
Allbrink; Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent, guardian,
and next friend of Jason R. Jacobs; and others
similarly situated,

Civil No. 09-1775 (DWF/FLN)

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota; Director,
Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a
program of the Minnesota Department of
Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; Clinical Director, the Minnesota
Extended Treatment Options, a program of
the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota; Douglas
Bratvold, individually and as Director of the
Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a
program of the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota;
Scott TenNapel, individually and as Clinical
Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options, a program of the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; and the State of Minnesota,
Defendants.

Mark R. Azman, Esq., and Shamus P. O’Meara, Esq., O’Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl, PA,
counsel for Plaintiffs.

Aaron Winter, Scott H. Ikeda, and Anthony R. Noss, Assistant Attorneys General,
Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, counsel for State Defendants.
Samuel D. Orbovich, Esq., and Christopher A. Stafford, Esq., Fredrikson & Byron, PA,
counsel for Defendant Scott TenNapel.

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ March 18, 2015 letter to the Court
seeking “clarification on the scope of the Court’s January 9, 2015 Order requiring the
State to submit a revised Olmstead Plan by March 20, 2015” and requesting “the Court to
extend the March 20 due date to allow for clarification of the Court’s January 9 Order.”
(Doc. No. 398.) Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ request. (Doc. No. 399.) For the reasons
set forth below, the Court denies Defendants’ request in its entirety.
DISCUSSION
I.

Defendants’ Request for Clarification
Defendants first seek clarification of the Court’s January 9, 2015 Order, which

Defendants “understood[] to mean that the Court did not intend the State to revise the
provisionally approved portions, but only to revise the specific items found to be
deficient.” (Doc. No. 398 at 1.)
Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ request for clarification. Plaintiffs assert that “[t]he
Court’s January 9, 2015, Order uses several examples to clearly illustrate and clarify the
approach the Court wanted DHS to undertake (after previous failed attempts by DHS to
comply with the Court’s Orders) in formulating measurable goals and objectives for the
entire Olmstead Plan to carry out DHS obligations to people with disabilities.” (Doc.

2

No. 399 at 2.) In addition, Plaintiffs assert that “on January 12, 2015, just three days
after the Court’s January 9, 2015, Order was issued, the Court Monitor specifically
reminded DHS that examples in the Court’s January 9, 2015, Order are not the only parts
of the Olmstead Plan which need reconsideration.” (Id. at 3.)
The Court concludes that Defendants’ clarification request is neither reasonable
nor justified. First, the Court notes that it expressly stated in its January 9, 2015 Order
that what Defendants refer to as “specific items found to be deficient” were simply
examples of deficiencies. In the Court’s January 9, 2015 Order, the phrase “for example”
repeatedly follows broad findings of deficiencies in each of the proposed Olmstead Plan’s
topic areas. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 378 at 12 (“The Court finds that many of the State’s
specific proposals to accomplish these strategies are inadequate. For example, . . .”).)
Although the Court identified only a number of the most glaring examples in the
proposed Olmstead Plan, the Court anticipated that Defendants would use the same
framework to revisit and address other inadequacies in the proposed Olmstead Plan.
Moreover, the Court has repeatedly provided Defendants with the standards against
which the Olmstead Plan is to be measured. (See, e.g., id. at 4 (reiterating that “these
topical goals must be assessed as to whether they are concrete, realistic, strategic,
measurable, and timely”); Doc. No. 344 (providing that “the Proposed Olmstead Plan
must contain concrete, reliable, and realistic commitments, accompanied by specific and
reasonable timetables, for which the public agencies will be held accountable”).) The
Court encourages Defendants to review the requirements set forth in Olmstead v. L.C.,
527 U.S. 582 (1999), and in the numerous prior orders of this Court.
3

II.

Defendants’ Request for Extension of Time
Defendants also request an extension of time to file the revised Olmstead Plan.

Defendants assert that because they did not proceed with the understanding that the
Court’s January 9, 2015 Order “was to apply broadly, not just to specific items mentioned
in the Order,” they “are not prepared to submit a plan that meets those requirements.”
(Doc. No. 398 at 1.) Defendants seek the Court’s approval to submit “a timetable and
work plan for revision of the Plan.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs strongly oppose Defendants’ request for an extension of time. Plaintiffs
assert that Defendants’ letter “does not reference that it was submitted with Court
permission, nor does the letter comply with the local rules for reconsidering Court orders.”
(Doc. No. 399 at 2 (citing D.Minn. LR 7.1).) In addition, Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s
January 9, 2015 Order was publicly filed and available to Defendants for the past nine
weeks. (Doc. No. 399 at 2.) Plaintiffs assert that “[m]indful of the lengthy history
involving DHS non-compliance and prior Olmstead Plan deadline extensions, any
requests for further clarification and extension of Olmstead Plan deadlines should have
been sought immediately after the January 9, 2015, Order was issued.” (Id.) Plaintiffs
further argue that “the letter offers no compelling reason to justify an extension of the
March 20 revised deadline.” (Id.)
The Court concludes that Defendants’ request is untimely and inappropriate.
Defendants submitted the March 18, 2015 letter request a mere two days before the
deadline for filing the revised Olmstead Plan. Defendants waited more than two months
after the issuance of the Court’s January 9, 2015 Order to submit the request for an
4

extension of time. Defendants should have sought clarification of the Court’s Order
immediately, as consistent with standard practice, rather than two days before the filing
deadline. The Court views Defendants’ request for an extension of time to be an
unjustified variance from standard practice and to be disrespectful to the Court and all
interested parties in light of the Court’s established deadlines.
In addition, Defendants’ request needlessly delays closure on final approval of the
Olmstead Plan. The Court reminds Defendants of their promise to “develop and
implement a comprehensive Olmstead Plan” more than three years ago at the time of the
Settlement Agreement. (See Doc. No. 136, Ex. A at 18.) Defendants have failed to meet
previous Olmstead Plan filing deadlines, resulting in revised deadlines and additional
delays. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 265 (extending Defendants’ November 1, 2013 filing
deadline to July 15, 2014).) The Court encourages Defendants to timely fulfill their
obligations under the Settlement Agreement.
ORDER
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that Defendants’ request for clarification of the Court’s January 9, 2015 Order and an
extension of time (Doc. No. [398]) is DENIED.
Date: March 19, 2015

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

5