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

Filing 592

ORDER: Defendant's appeal (Doc. No. 392 ) of Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's Order on Defendant's request to file a motion for reconsideration is OVERRULED. Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's October 19, 2018 Order on Defendant's request to file a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 389 ) is AFFIRMED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 12/10/2018. (las)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Tenner Murphy, by his guardians Kay and
Richard Murphy; Marrie Bottelson; Dionne
Swanson; and on behalf of others similarly
situated,

Civil No. 16-2623 (DWF/BRT)

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

Emily Johnson Piper in her Capacity
as Commissioner of The Minnesota
Department of Human Services,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s appeal (Doc. No. 392
(“Appeal”)) of Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s October 19, 2018 Order (Doc.
No. 389 (“Order”)) denying Defendant’s request to file motion for reconsideration of her
August 29, 2018 Order (Doc. No. 365). Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendant’s
objections on November 16, 2018. (Doc. No. 543.)
DISCUSSION
I.

Legal Standard
The Court must modify or set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order

found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a); Local Rule 72.2(a). This is an “extremely deferential” standard. Reko v.
Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). “A finding is

‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on
the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Chakales v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Chase v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 926 F.2d 737, 740 (8th Cir. 1991)). “A
magistrate judge’s ruling is contrary to law when it either fails to apply or misapplies
pertinent statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Coons v. BNSF Ry. Co., 268 F. Supp.
3d 983, 991 (D. Minn. 2017) (citing Edeh v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d
1030, 1043 (D. Minn. 2010)).
II.

Background
On July 20, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to compel the deposition of a witness

with knowledge of Plaintiffs’ requested relief. (Doc. No. 287.) On August 29, 2018,
Magistrate Judge Thorson denied Defendant’s motion. (Doc. No. 365.) Defendant
objected to Magistrate Judge Thorson’s August 29, 2018 Order on September 12, 2018.
(Doc. No. 370.) Prior to this Court’s ruling, Defendant filed a letter requesting
Magistrate Judge Thorson’s permission to file a motion for reconsideration of her
August 29, 2018 Order as it pertained to the additional deposition. (Doc. No. 385.)
Magistrate Judge Thorson denied this request in a text-only order on October 19, 2018.
(Order.) This Court affirmed Magistrate Judge Thorson’s August 29, 2018 Order in all
respects on November 9, 2018. (Doc. No. 415.) Defendant now objects to Magistrate
Judge Thorson’s denial of her request to file a motion to reconsider. (Appeal.)

2

III.

The Magistrate Judge’s Order and Defendant’s Objections
Magistrate Judge Thorson rejected Defendant’s request to file motion for

reconsideration of her August 29, 2018 Order because she found that Defendant failed to
show compelling circumstances necessary to obtain such permission. (Order.)
Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Thorson’s Order is clearly erroneous because the
circumstances she presents are sufficiently compelling to justify a motion for
reconsideration. (Appeal at 6.)
“Under Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must show ‘compelling circumstances’ to obtain
permission to file a motion to reconsider.” Burt v. Winona Health, Civ. No. 16-1085,
2018 WL 2180252, at *1 (D. Minn. Mar. 23, 2018) (citing D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(j)). “A
motion to reconsider should not be employed to relitigate old issues, but rather to afford
an opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. (citing Dale & Selby
Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348 (D. Minn. 1993).
Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Thorson’s August 29, 2018 denial of her
request to depose an additional witness was based on her finding that Defendant’s need
was likely mooted by her ability to seek additional discovery in the form of expert reports
and expert deposition testimony. (Appeal at 3.) Because Plaintiffs’ expert was unable to
answer all of Defendant’s questions, Defendant argues that the basis of Magistrate Judge
Thorson’s August 29, 2018 Order was incorrect and therefore constitutes a compelling
circumstance to jusitfy a motion for reconsideration.
The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Thorson’s August 29, 2018 decision to deny
Defendant’s request to depose an additional witness was based on more than just the
3

likelihood that Defendant’s need would be mooted by her ability to seek additional
discovery in the form of expert reports and expert testimony. As observed in the Court’s
November 9, 2018 Order overruling Defendant’s first objection to Magistrate Judge
Thorson’s August 29, 2018 Order:
Magistrate Judge Thorson correctly observed that in collective answers, not
every Named Plaintiff will know what information was obtained from
others, and that the Named Plaintiffs and guardians will not know what
information was obtained from third parties listed as assisting with the
answers. She also noted that Plaintiffs identified several people who
assisted Plaintiffs with their collective answers, yet Defendant chose not to
depose them. Further, she correctly stated that it should have been
expected that the interrogatory answers and supplemental answers may
include facts known to the attorneys but not necessarily known to the
Named Plaintiffs. The Named Plaintiffs and/or their guardians answered
basic questions about the relief sought and reasonably referred to their
attorneys when appropriate such that and the interrogatories comply with
the verification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.
(Doc. No. 415 at 4.) The fact that Defendant was unable to get all of her specific
questions answered by Plaintiffs’ expert is not a compelling circumstance to
justify a motion for reconsideration. Indeed, Magistrate Judge Thorson could have
properly denied Defendant’s request to depose an additional witness for any one of
the other factors she considered, whether or not Defendant had the opportunity to
gain additional discovery through expert reports and testimony.
CONCLUSION
This Court finds that Magistrate Judge Thorson’s Order is neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law. Giving proper deference to the Magistrate Judge’s
October 19, 2018 Order and for the reasons stated, the Court denies Defendant’s appeal
and affirms Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s October 19, 2018 Order.
4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant’s appeal (Doc. No. [392]) of Magistrate Judge Becky R.

Thorson’s Order on Defendant’s request to file a motion for reconsideration is
OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s October 19, 2018 Order on

Defendant’s request to file a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. [389]) is
AFFIRMED.

Dated: December 10, 2018

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

5