Bias Analysis of December 13, 2021 Order

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Bias Assessment of Judge Kevin Miller’s December 13, 2021 Discovery Order (and November 18, 2021 Hearing)
Rating: -7 (on a scale of -10 to +10, where -10 is highly biased toward Defendants)

Summary of the Order and Hearing:

Judge Miller granted Defendants’ motion to quash Plaintiffs’ October 12, 2021 subpoena to AT&T and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. The subpoena sought detailed call records, geolocation data, and metadata for Defendant Renee Stevenson’s cell phone for a limited timeframe (April 1, 2019 – November 19, 2020). Plaintiffs had reduced the scope from a previous broader subpoena and made additional concessions.

Key Indicators of Judicial Bias Toward Defendants:

1. Accusatory Tone and Disproportionate Threat of Sanctions Against Plaintiffs’ Counsel

• Before addressing the merits of the discovery motion, Judge Miller began the hearing by aggressively interrogating Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Schaap, and threatening sanctions. He claimed a violation of a vague prior order (“if agreement cannot be reached, the Court will address the request”) without clarifying procedural expectations.

• He accused Mr. Schaap of being “disingenuous” and stated that the order would need to be rewritten “so tight that it can’t be misconstrued,” placing blame on counsel instead of ambiguity in the court’s own order.

2. Minimal Weight Given to Plaintiffs’ Concessions and Efforts

• Plaintiffs eliminated requests for social security numbers and text/message content. Judge Miller dismissed these as “not concessions,” ignoring that Defendants themselves had demanded extensive private information from Plaintiffs, including sensitive medical records.

• He ignored the relevance argument that the phone records might demonstrate coordination among Defendants (e.g., before/after key events or messages), which supports conspiracy allegations central to the lawsuit.

3. Uncritical Adoption of Defense Framing

• The order and transcript adopt defense rhetoric: “fishing expedition,” “unfettered access,” “harassment.” Judge Miller repeats these characterizations verbatim and finds Plaintiffs’ efforts “overly broad,” despite the reduced scope of the subpoena.

• The Court accepts without question the defense claim that the sought records had “already been provided,” while ignoring Plaintiffs’ contrary assertion and evidence of gaps.

4. Asymmetrical Discovery Standards

• Judge Miller upheld extensive discovery demands on Plaintiff Marie Stevenson’s medical history as “essential” to the IIED claim—but rejected metadata from Renee’s phone as irrelevant or excessive, even though Plaintiffs sought only connection data (not content).

• He failed to explain why liberal discovery rules shouldn’t apply equally to uncover patterns or timing of communication among alleged co-conspirators.

5. No Sanction Consideration for Defense Counsel’s Conduct

• Judge Miller considered sanctioning Plaintiffs’ counsel over an arguable procedural misstep—but expressed no concern over Defendants’ complete failure to produce certain communications and prior subpoena noncompliance issues discussed in related proceedings.

Overall Justification of Bias Score: -7

This order demonstrates substantial favoritism toward Defendants, particularly in how Judge Miller:

• Framed Plaintiffs’ actions as improper while overlooking equivalent or more serious conduct by Defendants,

• Accepted Defendants’ characterization of Plaintiffs’ motives and legal positions without critical scrutiny,

• Discouraged legitimate discovery into potential coordinated misconduct central to Plaintiffs’ claims,

• Threatened Plaintiffs’ counsel with sanctions while offering no similar scrutiny toward Defendants’ evasions.

Had Judge Miller engaged more neutrally, encouraged narrowly tailored discovery (rather than outright quashing), and evaluated both sides’ obligations symmetrically, a neutral rating might have been warranted. Instead, the consistent adversarial tone and uneven treatment support a high bias rating.