---
title: Bias Analysis – December 15, 2021 Motion to Amend Complaint Order
url: https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-15-2021-motion-to-amend-complaint-order/
date: 2025-04-11T23:25:11+00:00
modified: 2026-11-06T11:29:41+00:00
lang: en_US
---

# Bias Analysis – December 15, 2021 Motion to Amend Complaint Order

**Historical AI analysis**
Model: ChatGPT 4o · Recorded publication date: April 11, 2025

This analysis is preserved in its original published wording as part of Justice-Denied’s history.

[Later reporting on amendment standards and disputed facts](https://justice-denied.org/revisiting-our-early-ai-analyses/#amendment-review).

![ChatGPT 4o](https://eadn-wc02-18301506.nxedge.io/cdn/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ChatGPT-Logo.png)

## **ChatGPT (AI) Analysis**

Based on a close review of Judge Kevin Miller’s **December 15, 2021 order** and the **October 8, 2021 hearing transcript**, his handling of Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint scores **approximately -6** on a bias scale of -10 to +10, with **-10 being highly biased in favor of Defendants** and **+10 being highly biased in favor of Plaintiffs**.

### 📉 **Bias Score: -6** (Moderately Biased Toward Defendants)

### 🔍 Key Indicators of Bias Toward Defendants:

1. **Early and Premature Legal Determinations**:
   - Judge Miller used a **summary judgment standard** to deny Plaintiffs’ request to include certain defamation allegations, even though this was a **Rule 15 motion to amend** — a procedural stage where courts typically assume the allegations are true unless clearly futile.
   - Plaintiffs correctly argued that “truth or falsity” should not be determined at the amendment stage unless there’s **no factual dispute**. The court did not credit that distinction, even though Defendants themselves admitted the facts were open to multiple interpretations — a factor which **should have favored permitting the amendment**.
2. **Selective Acceptance of Defendants’ Arguments**:
   - Judge Miller adopted Defendants’ claim that four statements were “substantially true” or privileged without addressing Plaintiffs’ counterarguments that:
     - Defamation should be assessed **in context**, per *Jadwin v. Star Tribune*, 390 N.W.2d 437 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
     - Questions of “substantial truth” often **require factual findings**, which is inappropriate for resolution on a motion to amend.
   - For example, Judge Miller accepted the Defendants’ assertion that Craig stole money and property based on divorce records without exploring whether the **disputed context** changed the meaning or falsity of the statements.
3. **Disregard for Liberal Amendment Standard**:
   - Minnesota courts apply a **liberal standard** under Rule 15, favoring amendments unless clearly futile. While Judge Miller cited the standard correctly, his **practical application was narrow** and appeared to assume the Defendants’ version of disputed facts.
4. **Over-reliance on “Absolute Privilege”**:
   - Judge Miller applied the **judicial proceeding privilege** to a single paragraph (54(b)) that Plaintiffs argued could be moved elsewhere to provide context rather than function as a standalone defamation claim. He struck it entirely instead of allowing modification, despite Plaintiffs’ willingness to accommodate.
   - This strict application raises concerns, especially since the statements were made in **pre-litigation** settings and may not have met the strict test for absolute privilege (*Matthis v. Kennedy*, 67 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 1954)).

### ⚖️ Mitigating Neutral or Fair Elements:

- Judge Miller **granted the motion in part**, allowing Plaintiffs to:
  - Add Ashley Anderson as a Defendant.
  - Proceed with the broader **civil conspiracy to inflict emotional distress** claim.
- He correctly acknowledged that amendments are allowed even without prejudice if the proposed claims are viable.

### 🧾 Conclusion:

While Judge Miller technically applied the correct legal standards on the surface, his **interpretation and factual framing favored Defendants** disproportionately. He minimized Plaintiffs’ factual disputes, dismissed contextual nuances in the defamation claims, and appeared to give **undue weight to defense arguments** without reciprocal scrutiny of Plaintiffs’ claims.

Original AI Bias Indicator

Original score −6

Historical assessment: moderately strong appearance of favoritism toward Defendants

−6

−10  −5  0  +5  +10

Favors Defendants  Neutral  Favors Plaintiffs

*The original −6 AI score is preserved with this historical analysis. [Later reporting](https://justice-denied.org/revisiting-our-early-ai-analyses/#amendment-review) explains how our understanding developed.*

*End of AI-generated analysisModel: ChatGPT 4o*

AI Content DisclosureThe analysis above was generated entirely or primarily by artificial intelligence.

## Source records

*Stevenson v. Stevenson*, Otter Tail County District Court, No. 56-CV-20-2928.

Order: December 15, 2021 — Doc. 152

Hearing transcript: October 8, 2021 — Doc. 232

To locate these records, open [MCRO Document Search](https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch), enter **56-CV-20-2928**, and locate the listed document numbers in the **Index #** column.

## Related reporting

- [Motion to Amend Complaint](https://justice-denied.org/distorting-the-law-motion-to-amend-complaint/)
- [Setting Aside the Fact](https://justice-denied.org/distorting-the-law-setting-aside-the-fact/)