Revenge
When courts choose to overlook key evidence—especially when it is repeatedly flagged and central to a party’s claims—the legitimacy of the legal process itself is called into question. It is deeply troubling when such omissions involve materials that speak directly to motive, coordination, and intent. The failure to even acknowledge relevant facts presented in the record suggests not just oversight, but a troubling disregard for due process and the responsibility to engage meaningfully with all presented evidence.
In his June 16, 2023 summary judgment order, Judge Miller dismissed Craig’s defamation claims against Sean and Renee, Marie’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claims against Sean, and conspiracy claims against all Defendants. However, a key piece of evidence related to a book titled, “Revenge“, was not mentioned by Judge Miller in his order. This book was discovered when a deleted text message from Sean was recovered from Lisa’s cell phone during a forensic examination. This evidence was in the record, was mentioned 17 times in our summary judgment opposition memorandum, and had been specifically discussed during oral argument at the summary judgment hearing.
Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze Judge Miller’s order in light of the omitted evidence. The specific AI query was:
I have uploaded Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 , summary judgment order.
The word “revenge” was used 17 times in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and 4 times during oral argument at summary judgment to discuss the evidence surrounding a deleted, but recovered, text from Sean to Lisa recommending a book titled, “Revenge”. (Doc. 394, at 20, 44-48; Doc. 421, Tr. 33:24,34:22,53:20-21.)
Sean purchased this book and recommended it to Lisa by stating in a text dated August 17, 2019, “I think you might like this book” and providing a link to the book on Amazon.
However, Judge Miller ignored this evidence in its entirety and failed to use the word “revenge” a single time in Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Order.
Analyze Judge Miller’s summary judgment order, and the additional evidence presented above.
Determine the significance of Judge Miller omitting this evidence from his summary judgment order and its impact on his dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims at summary judgment.
ChatGPT (AI) Analysis
Here’s an analysis based on Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023, Summary Judgment Order and the additional “revenge book” evidence you provided:
📌 Omission of the “Revenge” Evidence by Judge Miller: Significance and Impact
1. Central Relevance of the “Revenge” Evidence
The deleted and recovered August 17, 2019, text from Sean to Lisa recommending the book titled “Revenge” could:
- Show Sean’s state of mind or intent;
- Support Plaintiffs’ narrative that Sean and Lisa were motivated by revenge when making defamatory statements or engaging in intentional infliction of emotional distress;
- Undermine any defense that their actions were innocuous, accidental, or purely familial concern;
- Strengthen the civil conspiracy claim by offering evidence of coordinated malice.
The fact that Plaintiffs repeatedly raised the “Revenge” text (17 times in briefing and 4 times in oral argument) signals its perceived importance to their claims.
2. Judge Miller’s Failure to Address “Revenge”
Judge Miller’s Memorandum does not mention the word “revenge” once and does not analyze the August 17 text message or the book recommendation at all.
Legal Impact of This Omission
- Defamation per se claim: Since defamation per se turns heavily on whether defamatory statements were made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, the “revenge” text could have been probative of actual malice—a required element, especially if the case had constitutional speech concerns.
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): The extreme and outrageous nature of conduct is judged partly by intent and motivation. The “revenge” text could support a finding of wrongful intent or emotional targeting.
- Civil Conspiracy: The book recommendation could evidence premeditation or coordination—critical elements to prove a conspiracy.
By ignoring the “revenge” evidence, Judge Miller skipped an important factor that could materially affect:
- Whether Defendants’ conduct was actionable;
- Whether issues of intent or state of mind created genuine fact disputes precluding summary judgment.
3. Standard for Summary Judgment
Minnesota’s summary judgment standard (see DLH v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60) requires that if reasonable minds could differ on an issue of material fact, summary judgment is inappropriate.
The “revenge” text, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, could create a factual dispute about:
- Defendants’ motives;
- Whether statements were privileged or malicious;
- The existence of emotional distress or conspiratorial intent.
✅ Conclusion: Impact on Dismissal
Judge Miller’s complete omission of the “revenge” evidence undermines the thoroughness of the summary judgment analysis. Ignoring that evidence likely:
- Precluded proper evaluation of intent and malice;
- Sidestepped potential fact issues that should have reached a jury;
- Improperly favored Defendants at the summary judgment stage.
Given the text’s probative value, its omission likely had a material impact on the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ defamation per se, IIED, and civil conspiracy claims.
Important Note!
The Artificial Intelligence analysis above reflects the unusual and undisclosed relationships between judicial officers in this case.
Defense attorney Kirsten Hansen is the daughter of retired Otter Tail County Judge Mark F. Hansen. Judge Hansen’s former law clerk, James E. Morrison, authored at least 13 orders for Judge Miller in Plaintiffs’ case, including this one. Neither Judge Miller nor Attorney Hansen disclosed the prior relationship between Clerk Morrison and Judge Hansen to Plaintiffs.
In Skarsten, we reversed summary judgment for the insurer based on the resident-relative provision and cautioned “a court must not rely on selected facts in order to justify a conclusion.” 381 N.W.2d at 19. Here, the district court’s summary-judgment decision rested on “selected facts” because it ignored relevant evidence favorable to appellants’ position, drew inferences unfavorable to appellants, and failed to view the record evidence in a light favorable to appellants.
Progressive Ins. v. Abel, No. A21-1267, 2022 WL 2124869, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022)