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

Filing 830

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Defendant's objection (Doc. No. 824 ) to Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's April 1, 2022 Order (Doc. No. 821 ) is OVERRULED. Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's April 1, 2022 Order (Doc. No. 821 ) denying Defendants Motion to Amend/Alter/Correct Other Orders (Doc. No. 812 ) is AFFIRMED in its entirety. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/9/2022. (las)

CASE 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-BRT Doc. 830 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tenner Murphy, by his guardian
Kay Murphy; Marrie Bottelson; Dionne
Swanson; and on behalf of others
similarly situated,

Civil No. 16-2623 (DWF/BRT)

Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
Jodi Harpstead, in her capacity as
Commissioner of The Minnesota
Department of Human Services,
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s objection (Doc. No. 824 (“Def.
Obj.”)) to Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s April 1, 2022 Order (Doc. No. 821
(“April 2022 Order”)) denying Defendant’s Motion to Amend/Alter/Correct Other Orders
(Doc. No. 812 (“Def. Motion”)). Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendant’s objection on
April 11, 2022. (Doc. No. 826 (“Pl. Resp.”).) For the reasons set forth below, the Court
overrules Defendant’s objection to Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s April 1, 2022
Order and affirms it in its entirety
BACKGROUND
The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and precisely set
forth in the Court’s May 18, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order and is incorporated

CASE 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-BRT Doc. 830 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 11

by reference herein. (See Doc. No. 54.) The Court notes particular facts relevant to this
Order below.1
In August 2020, nearly two years after fact discovery in this matter closed, the
Court issued an Order intended to provide a “fair process for the supplementation of new
factual developments after the fact discovery cut-off, with admissibility disputes to be
determined by the District Judge.”2 (Doc. No. 706 at 17.) Thereafter, the Court ordered
the parties to meet and confer regarding their intentions with respect to supplemental
discovery and to jointly update the Court by January 20, 2021. (Doc. No. 727 at 4-6.)
The parties timely filed a Joint Status Report which included Defendant’s request
that Plaintiffs produce the “Named Plaintiffs’ and nine purported absent class members’
financial records, for any source used for support or personal expenses or the like, created
since June 15, 2018.” (Doc. No. 730 at 14.) Plaintiffs objected to this request, arguing
that “such information [was] unduly burdensome and not necessary, proportional, or
relevant to the issues in this case.” (Id.)
After a case management conference, Magistrate Judge Thorson issued a Limited
Supplemental Discovery Scheduling Order which specified that “any motions to compel
or for a protective order relating to the written discovery identified in the Joint Status

1

The Court also supplements the facts as needed.

2

The two-year gap was caused in part by unsuccessful settlement discussions and
further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. (See Doc. No. 706 at 14-15.)

2

CASE 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-BRT Doc. 830 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 11

Report must be filed and served no later than July 1, 2021.” (Doc. No. 7383
(“Scheduling Order”) at 3.) The Order also stated that “[a]ll supplemental document
production sought by each party from the other party not covered [by an earlier deadline]
must be completed no later than September 1, 2021.” (Id. ¶ 3.c. (emphasis in original).)
With respect to Defendant’s request for financial records, the Scheduling Order
stated:
As to Defendant’s request for (1) updated financial records created since
June 15, 2018, or (2) employment records, subject to Def.’s Req for
Production Nos. 4, 15, and 16, Plaintiffs must supplement their document
product and produce: (1) financial record documents; and (2) employment
records for any Named Plaintiffs that were created since June 15, 2018.
The Court will not require supplementation regarding “purported absent
class members.” That part of Defendant’s proposal is denied without
prejudice.
(Id. at ¶ 4(c)(iii) (emphasis in original).)4
The Scheduling Order also provided for depositions to take place after the written
discovery cut-off, from November 2021 through January 2022. (Id. at ¶ 5.h (this deadline
was subsequently extended to February 18, 2022 (Doc. No. 791 at 6), and again to
February 24, 2022 (Doc. No. 806)).) The Scheduling Order further stated that “[e]xcept
for those motions required to be filed and served earlier, any other motions relating to the
supplemental fact discovery must be filed and served by March 1, 2022.” (Scheduling
3

The Court cites an amended version of the Scheduling Order. (See Doc. No. 738.)
An earlier version of the Scheduling Order, substantively the same as its successor, was
issued on February 10, 2022. (See Doc. No. 732.)
4

While Defendant objected to this ruling (Doc. No. 735), this Court affirmed the
Scheduling Order in its entirety with a minor typographical amendment. (See Doc.
No. 737.)

3

CASE 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-BRT Doc. 830 Filed 05/09/22 Page 4 of 11

Order ¶ 7 (emphasis in original).) Moreover, the Scheduling Order clearly stated that
“under no circumstance may discovery be taken or produced later than February 28,
2022, unless leave of Court is granted.” (Id. ¶ 6 (emphasis in original).
On March 14, 2022, Defendant moved to amend the Scheduling Order insofar as
she sought an amendment to the July 1, 2021 motion to compel deadline so that she could
renew her request for the absent class members’ financial documents.5 (See Def.
Motion.) Defendant argued that she “did not have the opportunity to learn more about
purported absent class members’ financial documents until the recently concluded
deposition period,” and “[t]he deponents confirmed that their bank records would show
either the amount of cash they spend in the community or, in most cases, records of
where and when they spent money in the community.” (Doc. No. 815 at 1, 3-4.)
Magistrate Judge Thorson denied Defendant’s Motion because she found that
Defendant lacked the requisite showing of good cause when: (1) Defendant could have
come to the Court before the July 1, 2021 deadline expired to request an extension based
on her plan to ask the absent class members about their financial documents in their
depositions; (2) at least one of the absent class members’ depositions occurred over three
months before the March 1, 2022 motion deadline—and all depositions except for one
were finished before February 18, 2022, so at the very least Defendant could have come

5

On February 14, 2022, Defendant sent Plaintiffs a letter renewing her request for
the absent class members’ financial documents. (Doc. No. 816-1 at 28–30.) Plaintiffs
responded on February 21, 2022, stating that they would not produce the financial
documents. (Id. at 32–33.) Defendant did not request a meet-and-confer until March 4,
2022. (Id. at 35.)

4

CASE 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-BRT Doc. 830 Filed 05/09/22 Page 5 of 11

to the Court then to request an extension before the March 1, 2022 deadline; and (3) the
information Defendant learned from the deponents provided only obvious financial
information that Defendant already knew or should have known prior to the motion filing
deadline in July 2021.6 (April 2022 Order at 5-6.)
Magistrate Judge Thorson further observed that Defendant “took no steps to seek
modification of the Scheduling order under Local Rule 16.3 before the [July 2021]
deadline passed,” nor did she show diligence in seeking an amendment to the schedule in
advance of the March 2022 deadline.7 (Id. at 7.)
DISCUSSION
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
6

Magistrate Judge Thorson further noted that Defendant failed to show
extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify an amendment when she “did not
comply with D. Minn. LR 16.3 by securing a hearing date prior to the deadline expiring
in July 2021,” and that “even if circumstances warranted a motion that would have fallen
under the March 1, 2022 deadline,” Defendant still failed to comply with Rule 16.3(d).”
(April 2022 Order at 5 n.3.) To this end, Magistrate Judge Thorson observed that
“Defendant did not attempt to schedule a hearing on her motion until counsel called
chambers requesting a hearing date on or around March 11, 2022, a few days before
filing her motion on March 14, 2022.” (Id.)

7

Finding insufficient good cause to amend the Scheduling Order, Magistrate Judge
Thorson declined to address the parties’ other arguments. (Id. at 7 n.7.) She did remark
though, “that based on the files, records, and submissions before the Court, the Court’s
ruling regarding Defendant’s request for absent class members’ financial records would
remain the same as the ruling made in February 2021.” (Id. (citing Scheduling Order at
¶ 4(c)(iii)).)

5

CASE 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-BRT Doc. 830 Filed 05/09/22 Page 6 of 11

‘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)).
Defendant argues that because her first request for the purported absent class
members’ financial documents was denied without prejudice, Magistrate Judge Thorson
erroneously faults Defendant for waiting until she had additional evidence before
attempting to renew her request. (Def. Obj. at 6-12.) Specifically, Defendant contends
that “it was clearly erroneous for the Magistrate Judge to rule that Defendant was
required to bring a motion before July 1, 2021,” when she could not have brought such a
motion without it being identical to the motion already denied without prejudice.8 (Id.
at 7.) She contends that Magistrate Judge Thorson’s ruling effectively rendered any
opportunity she had to renew her request for the purported absent class members’
8

Defendant argues that prior to depositions, she had no factual basis on which to
reassert her request on different grounds. (Def. Obj. at 7.) Defendant further argues that
she acted with diligence when she brought her Motion 18 days after completing her final
deposition of a purported absent class member, and that it was “clearly erroneous” for
Magistrate Judge Thorson to conclude that she must show extraordinary circumstances as
to why she waited so long to schedule a hearing on her Motion when the Scheduling
Order indicated that any proposed amendments need not secure a hearing date. (Id. at 9
(citing Scheduling Order at 7).)

6

CASE 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-BRT Doc. 830 Filed 05/09/22 Page 7 of 11

financial documents illusory by improperly construing her previous decision as “with
prejudice.” (Id. at 7-9.)
Defendant further argues that it was clearly erroneous for Magistrate Judge
Thorson to fault her for not moving to amend before March 1 when that deadline did not
apply to a motion to compel. (Id. at 10-11.) Defendant also contends that “it is irrelevant
if the information learned [in depositions] was ‘obvious’ because it still would have been
pointless—under the Magistrate Judge’s and the Court’s reasoning in denying the motion
the first time—to renew Defendant’s motion without any relevant facts.”9 (Id. at 11.)
Finally, Defendant cites the relevance of the documents she seeks to argue that her
request is proportional to the needs of the case and that “it is unfair to deny Defendant on
timeliness grounds, a meaningful opportunity to renew her motion.” (Id. at 11-12.)
Plaintiffs argue that Magistrate Judge Thorson correctly concluded that Defendant
failed to establish good cause to amend the Scheduling Order because Defendant made
no attempt to meet the Court’s July 1, 2021 or March 1, 2022 deadlines. (Pl. Resp.
at 5-9.) Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s claim that she could not have brought her
Motion before the July 1, 2021 deadline without it being identical to the one previously
denied “ignores the fact that on May 3 and May 24, 2021, she received thousands of
pages of new facts and information . . . that is relevant to the same issues underlying
Defendant’s purported need for financial records.” (Id. at 6 (citing Doc. No. 780-1
at 34-37).)

9

Defendant also disputes that the information was “obvious.” (Def. Obj. at 11.)

7

CASE 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-BRT Doc. 830 Filed 05/09/22 Page 8 of 11

Plaintiffs further argue that Defendant’s objection “do[es] not articulate what new
or unique information she learned from the depositions that would make a renewed
request any different than her first,” and that even if the information were not obvious,
“Defendant cannot explain why she did not move to amend the Scheduling Order prior to
the July 1, 2021 deadline.” (Id. at 7.) Plaintiffs also assert that “Defendant’s argument
related to Local Rule 16.3(d) is nonsensical” when the August 2022 Order did not
meaningfully rely on the extraordinary circumstances standard to deny Defendant’s
Motion, and regardless, that Defendant still failed to comply with the Scheduling Order
when she ignored its deadlines. (Id. at 7-8.)
With respect to the March 1, 2022 deadline, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s
objection is irrational when that deadline was clearly established to put the parties on
notice that it would serve as the last opportunity to resolve any remaining disputes
relating to facts or supplemental discovery. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiffs contend that “there is
absolutely no reason why Defendant could not meet this deadline, and Defendant makes
no effort to explain why she failed to do so.” (Id.) Finally, Plaintiffs argue that
Defendant’s objection should be overruled because the motion to compel she seeks to file
is duplicative and unnecessary discovery. (Id. at 10-12.)
Over Defendant’s objection, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Thorson’s April
2022 Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. A court’s scheduling order
“may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4); see also D. Minn. LR 16.3(b)(1). “The primary measure of good cause is the
movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the order’s requirements.” Sherman v. Winco
8

CASE 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-BRT Doc. 830 Filed 05/09/22 Page 9 of 11

Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 716–17 (8th Cir. 2008). The Court agrees with Magistrate
Judge Thorson that Defendant has failed to establish the requisite good cause necessary
to modify the Scheduling Order.
Upon consideration of Defendant’s objection and a careful review of the record,
the Court is unconvinced that Defendant was unable to renew her request for the
purported absent class members’ financial documents prior to the July 1, 2021 deadline.
The record clearly reflects that Defendant had or should have had sufficient information
to properly renew her request at the appropriate time. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 780-1
at 34-37.) Moreover, Defendant does not explain how the information she obtained
through depositions was different than anything she already knew or had access to, or
why she did not approach the Court prior to the July 1, 2021 deadline to reserve her right
to renew her motion to compel if the deposition testimony did yield anything unique or
compelling. See, e.g., Reichel Foods, Inc. v. Proseal Am., Inc., Civ. No. 19-2604
(ECT/KMM), 2021 WL 3674495, at *4 (D. Minn. Aug. 19, 2021) (finding no good cause
to amend scheduling order despite moving party’s claim that it did not discover new facts
until after the amendment deadline); see also Solutran, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp & Elavon,
Inc., Civ. No. 13-2637 (SRN/BRT), 2017 WL 89558, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2017)
(placing onus on moving party to seek a deadline extension when subsequent discovery
may be relevant).
The Court is similarly unpersuaded that the March 1, 2022 deadline was irrelevant.
The Scheduling Order clearly stated that “[e]xcept for those motions required to be filed
and served earlier, any other motions relating to the supplemental fact discovery must be
9

CASE 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-BRT Doc. 830 Filed 05/09/22 Page 10 of 11

filed and served by March 1, 2022.” (Scheduling Order ¶ 7 (emphasis in original).)
While Defendant interprets this requirement to exclude her motion to compel because it
was subject to an earlier deadline, such reasoning would improperly permit Defendant to
skip deadlines and file motions indefinitely. The Court finds that the March 1, 2022
deadline was clearly intended to serve as a definitive end-date on which any motion
relating to supplemental fact discovery could be filed and cannot conclude that Defendant
acted diligently when she knowingly disregarded it.10
Finally, the Court agrees with Judge Thorson that because Defendant fails to
establish good cause to amend the Scheduling Order, her other arguments are largely
irrelevant.11 Khoday v. Symantec Corp., No. CV 11-180 (JRT/TNL), 2013 WL
12141434, at *2 (observing that because a party failed to show good cause to amend a

10

The Court further notes that while Magistrate Judge Thorson cited Defendant’s
failure to show extraordinary circumstances to justify an amendment to the Scheduling
Order under D. Minn. Local Rule 16.3, Federal Rule 16(b)(4) has no such requirement.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with
the judge’s consent.”) The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Thorson properly denied
Defendant’s Motion for failure to show good cause. Whether Defendant disagrees that
she needed to show extraordinary circumstances does not affect the ultimate conclusion
that Defendant’s Motion was properly denied.
11

Even if the Court were to consider Defendant’s argument that it is unfair to deny
her Motion on timeliness grounds, the Court briefly notes that it further agrees with
Magistrate Thorson that based on the files, records, and submissions before it,
Defendant’s request for absent class members’ financial records would remain
appropriately denied. The Court cannot conclude that Defendant’s request is proportional
to the needs of the case, or that the information Defendant seeks is not duplicative of
what she already has. (See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 816-1 at 1-26; 817, 817-1, and 817-2
(deposition testimony from absent class members on how they spend their money in the
community).)

10

CASE 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-BRT Doc. 830 Filed 05/09/22 Page 11 of 11

scheduling order, the party’s arguments related to the underlying strength of its request
absent any deadline were irrelevant).
In short, the Court respectfully overrules Defendant’s objection and affirms
Magistrate Judge Thorson’s April 2022 Order in its entirety. After nearly six years and
two rounds of discovery since this case commenced, a trial date now quickly approaches.
(Doc. No. 823.) At this late stage in the proceedings, the Court encourages the parties to
stay the course and to avoid further delays; justice demands it.
CONCLUSION
This Court finds that Magistrate Judge Thorson’s April 2022 Order is neither
clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court respectfully overrules
Defendant’s objection.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant’s objection (Doc. No. [824]) to Magistrate Judge Becky R.

Thorson’s April 1, 2022 Order (Doc. No. [821]) is OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s April 1, 2022 Order (Doc. No. [821])

denying Defendant’s Motion to Amend/Alter/Correct Other Orders (Doc. No. [812]) is
AFFIRMED in its entirety.
Dated: May 9, 2022

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

11