Bias Analysis of August 12, 2021 Order

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Based on a close analysis of Judge Kevin Miller’s August 12, 2021 discovery order and the May 27, 2021 hearing transcript, I would assess the bias score of the order at -7 on a scale from -10 (highly biased toward Defendants) to +10 (highly biased toward Plaintiffs).

Justification for Score: -7

1. Defendants’ Motion Framed as a “Protective Order”

Judge Miller granted Defendants’ motion to restrict Plaintiffs to only 50 RFAs per Defendant, despite:

• No explicit numerical limit on RFAs under Minn. R. Civ. P. 36;

• The fact that Plaintiffs had already removed duplicative requests and tailored them individually for each Defendant (as confirmed by Mr. Schapp and not disputed in substance by opposing counsel);

• Plaintiffs issuing 247 RFAs to Sean, 107 to Renee, and 132 to Lisa, in a case involving multiple torts and civil conspiracy, suggesting complexity.

This artificial cap was not supported by direct authority and significantly undermined Plaintiffs’ ability to develop their claims.

2. Failure to Require Specificity from Defendants

The defense:

• Did not identify specific RFAs that were abusive;

• Relied on generalized objections like “argumentative” or “irrelevant,” without meaningful itemization;

• Admitted that providing such specificity would be “costly,” effectively making that burden the court’s to solve.

Judge Miller nonetheless sided with Defendants without requiring them to meet their burden of proof on a discovery limitation motion.

3. Hostility Toward Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Arguments

Judge Miller repeatedly cut off Mr. Schapp, trivialized his proportionality argument (despite Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02 requiring proportionality analysis), and outright dismissed any notion that Defendant resources were a relevant factor—even though Defendants themselves raised it.

He also made sarcastic comments such as:

“I don’t believe that’s a legal standard at all… I’m not going to write a brief that says, well they’ve got a couple of attorneys they can answer these things no problem.”

Rather than applying Rule 26 proportionality factors (which include parties’ relative access to information and resources), Judge Miller seemed to selectively apply proportionality when it favored Defendants.

4. Dismissiveness Toward Past Conduct Despite Its Relevance

Although Plaintiffs explained that several RFAs pertained to:

• Conspiracy development over decades;

• Ongoing defamatory narratives about Craig’s character as a father;

• Emotional trauma with historic triggers tied to IIED claims;

Judge Miller dismissed the relevance of such background, saying:

“I’m struggling with how statements from 2019 can have relevance to something from 1988.”

This disregards Rule 26(b)’s broad relevance standard and the principle that historical context is often crucial in IIED and conspiracy claims.

5. Misuse of Sanction Threat

The order ominously states:

“If counsel for Plaintiffs violates the Court’s limit… the Court may impose sanctions…”

This goes beyond standard discovery enforcement and imposes a chilling effect, particularly when the limit itself lacks basis in the rules.

Summary

Judge Miller’s ruling:

• Penalized Plaintiffs for using a discovery method specifically designed to narrow issues;

• Gave undue deference to vague and unsupported defense complaints;

• Trivialized the burden on Plaintiffs to build claims involving extensive inter-defendant coordination;

• Sided procedurally and rhetorically with the defense throughout the hearing and order.

These factors support a strong finding of judicial bias toward Defendants in this context. Bias Score: -7.