Laughlin et al v. Stuart et al

Filing 340

ORDER withdrawing 197 Motion to Compel; denying 215 Motion to Compel; denying 223 Motion for Order to Show Cause; denying 227 Motion to Compel; denying 229 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung on 4/22/2021. (Written Opinion) (LAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Malik Laughlin, et al.,

Case No. 19-cv-2547 (ECT/TNL)

Plaintiffs,
ORDER

v.
James Stuart, et al.,
Defendants.

Malik Laughlin, MCF-Stillwater, 970 Pickett Street North, Bayport, MN 55003; Kenneth
Lewis, Sherburne County Jail, 13880 Business Center Drive, Elk River, MN 55330; 1
Michael Hari, Sherburne County Jail, 13880 Business Center Drive, Elk River, MN
55330 (pro se Plaintiffs);
Robert I. Yount, Assistant Anoka County Attorney, Government Center, 2100 Third
Avenue, Suite 720, Anoka, MN 55303 (for Defendants James Stuart, Jonathon Evans,
Lt. Sheila Larson, Sgt. Carrie Wood, and Jesse Rasmussen); and
Gary K. Luloff and Jennifer J. Crancer, Chestnut Cambronne PA, 100 Washington
Avenue South, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, MN 55401 (for Defendant Tessa Villegas).
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Hari’s (“Hari”) Motion to
Compel Answers to Discovery Requests (ECF No. 215), Hari’s Verified Motion for Rule
to Show Cause (ECF No. 223), Hari’s Verified Motion for An Order Compelling
Production for the Purpose of in camera Review (ECF No. 227), and Hari’s Motion for
Sanctions under Rule 37(e) for Spoliation of Evidence (ECF No. 229). 2 For the reasons
Plaintiffs Hari and Laughlin both provided this address for Plaintiff Lewis. (See ECF Nos. 262, 264.) A recent search
of
the
Sherburne
County
Jail
shows
Lewis
is
currently
in
custody.
See
https://inmatelocatorext.co.sherburne mn.us/inmatelocator/ (last visited April 22, 2021).
2
On September 1, 2020, Hari sent via U.S. Mail a separate Motion to Compel Answers to Written Interrogatories,
which was filed on September 9, 2020. (ECF No. 197.) The following day, Hari sent a request asking that this motion
be withdrawn. (ECF No. 187.) This request, though sent after the motion, was received by the Clerk of the Court and
1

1

set forth below, the Court denies each of these motions.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Warnings on Meet and Confer Requirements
In its August 17, 2020 Order, the Court cautioned Hari about filing motions without
engaging in a proper meet and confer, writing:
Hari is proceeding pro se in this matter but must follow the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this
District. Going forward, for all motions where a meet and
confer is required, Hari must file documentation with each
motion that is sufficient to show that he engaged in a genuine
meet and confer with opposing counsel. A simple statement
that he met and conferred with opposing counsel so is
insufficient. Hari must include either the correspondence that
he sent to the other side and their response or provide a
sufficiently detailed summary of the meet and confer to show
that a proper one took place. Should he not do so, the Court
will deny his motions summarily going forward.
(ECF No. 142 at 9 (footnote omitted).) The Court reminded Defense counsel to “respond
promptly to any correspondence. The Court will waive the meet-and-confer requirement
if apparent that counsel responded untimely.” (Id. at 9 n.4.)
On August 24, 2020, the Court denied Hari’s two Motions to Change “Confidential
Designation of Documents (ECF Nos. 150 & 151) 3 as premature because Hari had not
engaged in a meaningful meet and confer with County Defendants. (ECF No. 157 at 1.)
The Court reasoned, “Hari must engage in a meaningful meet and confer with Defendants
before filing motions. D. Minn. LR 7.1(a). He has not done so here. Instead, he appears

filed on September 3, 2020. (Id.) The Court grants Hari’s request to withdraw this motion.
3
Two motions were filed. One appeared to be a complete motion (ECF No. 151) and the other appeared to be a copy
of the first page of the motion (ECF No. 150.)

2

to have sent meet and confer letters and then filed his motions without waiting for any
substantive response.” (Id. at 2.) The Court also denied Hari’s motion for reconsideration
of this decision on the basis that Hari did not demonstrate that a meaningful meet and
confer took place. (See ECF No. 333.) This included the finding that Hari’s July 18, 2020
letter was not evidence of a proper meet and confer, in part because shortly after sending
that letter, Hari filed two motions and an appeal of this Court’s order on his motion to
vacate a previous order. (ECF No. 333 at 3.) In addition, Hari had filed multiple rounds
of discovery requests, and was at the time disputing County Defendants’ responses to those
requests. (Id. at 3-4.) The Court concluded, “[i]n light of this extensive litigation, the
Court will not hold against Defense Counsel the fact that he was delayed in responding to
the original July 18 letter in light of all the filings that Hari propounded around the same
time.” (Id. at 4.)
B. Relevant Communications
The Court’s review of the record establishes the following timeline of relevant
communication between the parties and the Court as it relates to the motions currently
under consideration: 4
• July 18, 2020: Hari sends a letter to County Defendants that he titles as a meet and
confer, but merely asks about confidentiality designations. (ECF No. 183-1 at 1.) 5
As the Court noted in a previous order, this was not evidence of a proper meet and
confer as there was “no indication in that letter that Hari intended to challenge the
Unless otherwise noted, the dates the Court uses are the dates the sender designates in the letter, as opposed to the
postmark date or the date the letter was received and filed by the Clerk of Court.
5
This same letter was also filed at ECF No. 130.
4

3

designation of those documents or seek any other relief from the Court.” (ECF No.
333 at 3.)
• August 6, 2020: Hari sends a letter titled “More Discovery Meet and Confer 19 CV
2547/ 19 CV 1330 Rule 56” to County Defendants. (ECF No. 183-1 at 2.) In this
letter, Hari details 13 bullet-points of discovery issues for County Defendants to
address. He concludes the letter by writing, “[t]his is not a complete list, only a
guide to help you understand what I am still missing, and what needs to change.”
(Id.) Hari also addresses discovery issues in a separate case which, at that time, was
pending before the Court. 6
• August 7, 2020: Hari sends another letter to County Defendants challenging the
confidentiality designations of certain discovery documents. (Id. at 3-6.) 7 Hari
requests further explanation of the County Defendants’ classification of these
documents and states that if no agreement is reached, he will ask to Court to review
the classification of the documents. (Id. at 6.)
• August 10, 2020: County Defendants send a letter to Hari about certain documents
that they had designated as confidential. (ECF No. 156-1.)
• August 12, 2020: Hari sends a letter to County Defendants proposing to amend the
Protective Order previously entered by the Court. 8 (ECF No. 168.) 9

This case was Hari et al. v. Stuart et al., 19-cv-1330 (ECT/TNL) (D. Minn.), which was dismissed and closed in
November of 2020.
7
This letter was handwritten. The Court believes Hari titled this letter “Evasive Email & Other Discovery
Classification as ‘Confidential’ 7.1(a) Meet & Confer Attempts;” the writing, however, is difficult to discern.
8
Hari sent another letter to County Defendants on this date requesting additional written interrogatories and to
conduct depositions. (ECF No. 152.)
9
Hari also files this letter with another document (See ECF No. 183-1 at 7.)
6

4

• August 13, 2020: County Defendants send a letter to Hari in response to the letters
he sent on August 6 and 7. (ECF No 156-2.) 10 This letter indicates that in these
two letters Hari “set forth 28 separate discovery issues.” (ECF No. 156-2 at 1.)
Counsel for County Defendants indicates in this letter that he was helping two of
the Defendants respond to discovery requests and that he would respond to these
letters “with one responsive letter as soon as reasonably possible.” (Id.)
• August 15, 2020: Hari files with the Court a document titled “Local Rule 7.1 Meet
and Confer Statement” which states that he “made an attempt to meet and confer
with the Defendants by sending them a [sic] letters on July 18, 2020 and August 7,
2020 as well a [sic] numerous notices and filings complaining about the
indiscriminate classification of these documents.” (ECF No. 212.)
• August 18, 2020: County Defendants send a letter to Hari in response to his August
12 letter. (Id. at 8.) In this letter, County Defendants state they believe “the
Protective Order is a standing Court order which cannot be amended by the parties.”
(Id.)
• August 18, 2020: Hari sends a letter to County Defendants he titles as a meet and
confer regarding a joint motion for continued sealing after the Court’s August 17,
2020 Order. (ECF No. 158.) 11 In this letter, he requests unsealing of all of the
documents addressed in the order. (Id. at 1.) Hari sends additional letters to County
Defendants on this date. One challenges the redaction of certain discovery. (ECF

10
11

County Defendants indicate they mailed this letter the following day, August 14, 2020. (ECF No. 156 at 1.)
Hari also filed this letter a second time. (See ECF No. 170.)

5

No. 171.) One proposes amending the complaint and asks for County Defendants’
input. (ECF No. 172.) One requests “Post Orders” and shift briefings in response
to his discovery requests. (ECF No. 173.)
• August 21, 2020: County Defendants file a letter with the Court requesting the
Court summarily deny Hari’s Motion to Change ‘Confidential’ Designation of
Documents (ECF No. 151) arguing that the motion is “premature and unnecessarily
vexatious.” (ECF No. 156 at 1.) Attached to this letter are the letters sent from
County Defendants to Hari on August 10 and 14, 2020. (ECF Nos. 156-1 & 156-2.)
• August 24, 2020: Hari sends a letter to County Defendants titled “RE: New Letter
on 2nd Amended Complaint, Meet Confer etc.” (ECF No. 181-1.) In this letter,
Hari writes, in relevant part:
Before you get bent out of shape since I just sent you a meet
and confer last week, I am hanging on to this for a couple of
extra days so that you can see just what I’m proposing before I
drop it in the mail to file it. I don’t mean to file this until Friday
at the earliest, that is the 28th, ten days since the first letter I
sent you and 8 days since the second, and hopefully you will
get this in time to review it before it would get to the
courthouse. I’m trying to be very careful about letting you
have your time to decide on this stuff and meet and confer
before I file it since the Order of the 17th of August. I’d like
to have your input on this and make this a joint motion if we
can do it . . . If the proposal doesn’t suit you, you don’t need to
bother calling. I’ll just file it if I don’t hear from you.
(Id. at 1.)

6

• August 25, 2020: Hari sends a letter to County Defendants titled “RE: Motion to
Change Designation, Meet and Confer, etc.” (ECF No. 165.) 12 In this letter, Hari
states he received a letter that County Defendants had sent to the Court. (Id. at 1.)
Hari also acknowledges the Court’s August 17, 2020 Order, which cautioned Hari
that he must engage in meaningful meet and confers prior to filing motions. (Id. at
2.)
• August 27, 2020: Hari sends a letter that he designates as a meet and confer to
County Defendants, asking for responses to the 13 interrogatories he served on
Defendant James Stuart. (ECF No. 185.) He writes that he did not receive
responses, requests a phone call, and concludes that if he is not called, he will
“assume they were not sent.” (Id. at 1.)
• August 28, 2020: Hari sends a letter to the Court where he argues that he began the
meet and confer process on the confidential designation of documents in his July
18th letter as opposed to the letters dated August 6 and 7. (ECF No. 183.) In this
letter Hari states, in relevant part:
I have made changes to the way I conduct meet-and-confer
attempts with Defendants. Going forward, I send them a letter
with my concerns with a telephone number. I’ve told
Defendants that if they agree with my proposal (or has [sic]
input) to call the number and leave me a message. I check that
number daily. This way I am not “sitting by the mailbox” for
weeks looking for an email . . . This is now the best I can do.

12

Hari also files this letter with other documents. (See ECF No. 183-1 at 12-13.)

7

(Id. at 2.) Hari further states that, in his mind, he has three issues pending with
County Defendants, namely the classification of documents, a proposal to amend
the complaint, and “another discovery dispute over requests for admissions and
written interrogatories” that had been served on July 23, 2020. (Id.) Hari then writes
as to the interrogatory issue that if counsel for County Defendants does not “raise
an objection or otherwise contact me, I don’t know what I can do but ask for a
Motion to Compel.” (Id.)
• September 1, 2020: County Defendants send a letter to Hari “in response to your
various discovery letters served and filed with the Court.” (ECF No. 225 at 2-3.)
In this letter, County Defendants address certain discovery positions. (Id.)
• September 5, 2020: Hari sends a letter titled “Sept 1st Yount Letter Response” to
County Defendants. (ECF No. 225 at 4-5.) In this letter, Hari asks for County
Defendants to clarify certain positions stated in their September 1 letter. (Id.)
• September 9, 2020: Hari sends a letter to County Defendants titled “19cv-2547
Hari et al. v Stuart et al. Meet and Confer Personnel File/Discovery.” (ECF No.
204.) He writes that this is a letter in response to County Defendants’ September 1,
2020 letter. (Id. at 1.) He outlines disagreements regarding discovery of certain
personnel files, makes various suggestions on how to handle the issue, and
concludes the letter by writing, “I’d like your response back by the 20th of
September . . . Otherwise I intend to file a Motion to Compel for relevant material
from the personnel files only, or maybe (since you suggest it) an in camera review.”
(Id.)
8

II. ANALYSIS
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a party to include “a certification that
the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party
failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) (emphasis added). The meet-and-confer requirement is also outlined
by the District’s Local Rules. See D. Minn. LR 7.1(a) (“Before filing a motion other than
a motion for a temporary restraining order or a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, the moving
party must, if possible, meet and confer with the opposing party in a good-faith effort to
resolve the issues raised by the motion.”) (emphasis added). “Before the court can rule on
a motion, the parties must demonstrate they acted in good faith to resolve the issue among
themselves.” Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added).
Thus, as Hari has been reminded, the meet-and-confer requirement “is only fulfilled when
parties have engaged in a genuine and good-faith discussion about each discovery request
that is in dispute.”

Mgmt. Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Companies, Inc., No. 17-cv-5009

(JRT/KMM), 2019 WL 2024538, at *1 (D. Minn. May 8, 2019) (emphasis added). “In
other words, it is not enough . . . to send an email or letter to opposing counsel essentially
stating: ‘Comply, in full, with all of our discovery requests or we will file a motion to
compel,’ and engage no further in a discussion about each side’s position.” Id.
The Court has reviewed in great detail the numerous communications sent between
Hari and County Defendants prior to these motions being filed, see supra at Section I(B),
and finds that Hari did not meet and confer in good faith with County Defendants before
filing his motions.
9

Hari sent his motion to compel on September 17, 2020. (ECF No. 215 at 11.) In
the attached meet and confer statement, Hari wrote in relevant part:
Plaintiff Hari and the Defendants exchanged letters on the 27th
of August (Hari) and the 1st of September (Defendants), and
Hari then sent two letters—one to Wood and one to Stuart
inviting Stuart and Wood to confer by telephone or letter, and
asking for their reply by the 15th of September. As of the 17th
of September, no reply has been received.
(ECF No. 215-1 at 1.) 13
Hari sent his motion for an order to show cause on September 20, 2020 (ECF No.
223-1 at 1.) In the attached meet and confer statement, Hari wrote, “The Plaintiff made an
attempt to meet and confer with the Defendants by sending them a letter on 8/6/20. The
Defendants replied on September 1st, 2020, stating that they were working on the request
for shift briefings, but non [sic] have been received.” (ECF No. 223 at 2.)
Hari also sent his motion for in camera review on September 20, 2020. (ECF No.
227-1 at 1.) In the attached meet and confer statement, Hari wrote, “The Plaintiff made an
attempt to meet and confer with the Defendants by sending them a letter on 8/6/2020. The
Defendants responded on September 1st, 2020, requesting an additional court order for
production of these documents. On September 9, 2020, the Plaintiff responded with
another letter, and has not received a reply.” (ECF No. 227 at 2.)
Hari also sent his motion for sanctions on September 20, 2020. (ECF No. 229 at 8.)
In his meet and confer statement, Hari wrote that he “attempted to meet and confer with
the Defendants by sending them a letter on the 6th of August, which the Defendants replied

13

This statement was also filed at ECF No. 219.

10

to reporting no more emails or attachments remained to produce on September 1st, 2020.”
(Id. at 9.)
The review of the letters sent on August 6, September 5, and September 9 do not
show evidence of proper meet and confer prior to Hari filing his motions. The August 6
letter is a lengthy list of discovery issues and only mentions filing a motion in a separate
case. (See ECF No. 183-1 at 2.) Hari himself concludes in that letter that “[t]his is not a
complete list, only a guide to help you understand what I am still missing, and what needs
to change.” (ECF No. 183-1 at 2.) The September 5 letter asks County Defendants to
further clarify the positions they asserted in a letter dated September 1, and the only
language that could possibly be construed as moving to seek relief from the Court is when
Hari writes “Rule 56 motion?” 14 on page 2 after suggesting that the parties will need more
time to conduct discovery. (ECF No. 225 at 5.)
The September 9 letter is also not a proper meet and confer, because Hari again
failed to give County Defendants adequate time to respond to his suggestion that if the
parties cannot come to an agreement on the issues of the personnel files, he will then seek
relief from the Court. (ECF No. 204 at 1.) Hari then gives County Defendants an
ultimatum: reply by September 20, or I will file a motion. (Id.)
The Court has outlined in a separate order that the delay in responding was
“understandable” in light of the number of requests Hari had sent at that time. (ECF No.
333 at 4.) Further, Hari did not comply with the August 17, 2020 Order. The brief

The Court is unsure of what exactly Hari suggests when he writes “Rule 56 Motion?” as this Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure deals with Summary Judgment.

14

11

statements he attached to the motions does not “include either the correspondence that he
sent to the other side and their response or provide a sufficiently detailed summary of the
meet and confer to show that a proper one took place.” (ECF No. 142 at 9.) Hari’s citation
to letters filed at various points throughout this litigation similarly does not amount to
sufficient correspondence, particularly because the letters he cites to either outline a variety
of issues, do not suggest specifically that he will be seeking relief from the Court, or do not
include a reply from Defendants after he states he wishes to seek relief from the Court. In
three of the four meet and confer statements on these motions, Hari acknowledges that he
has not received a response from County Defendants. (See ECF No. 215-1 at 1 (motion to
compel); ECF No. 223 at 2 (motion for an order to show cause); ECF No. 227 at 2 (motion
for in camera review).) Other comments by Hari also acknowledge that he plans on filing
motions without waiting for a reply from County Defendants. (See ECF No. 181-1; ECF
No. 183 at 2; ECF No. 185 at 1.)
In sum, due to the sheer volume and scope of Hari’s requests, along with his inability
to show that he engaged in any meaningful back-and-forth communication on specific
issues prior to seeking relief from the Court, the Court denies each of Hari’s motions. The
Court again reminds Hari that, in any future motion practice, he must show that he
meaningfully met and conferred with Defendants by attaching correspondence that
demonstrates a meaningful conversation took place on a specific discovery issue, including
Defendants’ response to a suggestion to seek relief from this Court.
Finally, Hari’s actions and manner of litigating the motions addressed by the Court
in this Order additionally reinforce the increasingly ineluctable reality that Hari is
12

intentionally “conducting this and other lawsuits in a manner to oppress and unduly burden
opposing parties and the Court with vexatious litigation.” (ECF No. 333 at 4.) Hari is
again cautioned that should litigation continue in this manner, the Court may well avail
itself of any and all tools set forth under the rules, law, previous orders, and Section 7
below, including for purposes of emphasis and not limitation, summarily denying Hari’s
motions that fail to comply with all applicable orders, rules, and law.
III. ORDER
Therefore, based upon the record, memoranda, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Hari’s “Request to Withdraw Motion to Compel Answer to Interrogatories and
Requests for Admissions Admitted” (ECF No. 187) is GRANTED and his Motion
to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted
(ECF No. 197) is WITHDRAWN.
2. Hari’s Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery Requests (ECF No. 215) is
DENIED.
3. Hari’s Verified Motion for Rule to Show Cause (ECF No. 223) is DENIED.
4. Hari’s Verified Motion for An Order Compelling Production for the Purpose of in
camera Review (ECF No. 227) is DENIED.
5. Hari’s Motion for Sanctions under Rule 37(e) for Spoliation of Evidence (ECF No.
229) is DENIED.
6. All prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect.
7. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior consistent
order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or the
party such counsel represents to any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions and the
like, including without limitation: assessment of costs, fines and attorneys’ fees and
disbursements; waiver of rights to object; exclusion or limitation of witnesses,
testimony, exhibits, and other evidence; summary denial of motions; striking of
pleadings; complete or partial dismissal with prejudice; entry of whole or partial
13

default judgment; and/or any other relief that this Court may from time to time deem
appropriate.
Date: April 22 , 2021

s/Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota
Laughlin, et al. v. Stuart, et al.
Case No. 19-cv-2547 (ECT/TNL)

14