Bias Analysis of December 21, 2021 Order

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Based on a detailed analysis of Judge Kevin Miller’s December 21, 2021 order denying Plaintiffs’ motions to compel and the corresponding September 24, 2021 hearing transcript, I would rate Judge Miller’s order at approximately -8 on a scale from -10 (heavily biased toward Defendants) to +10 (heavily biased toward Plaintiffs).

Rationale for -8 Bias Rating:

1. Dismissal of Evidence Without Inquiry

• Plaintiffs presented phone records showing extensive, undisclosed communications among Defendants, which aligned with allegedly defamatory events. These records supported Plaintiffs’ position that Defendants’ interrogatory responses were evasive and document production was incomplete.

• Judge Miller ignored these records entirely in his written order, even though they were highlighted in both written submissions and oral argument. He accepted Defendants’ broad denials at face value without any effort to reconcile them with the metadata-based call and text patterns shown.

2. Failure to Engage with Specific Discovery Deficiencies

• Plaintiffs identified specific interrogatories and document requests that were either ignored or inadequately answered. The order makes no individualized findings as to the sufficiency of the responses to these requests.

• Instead, Judge Miller issued a blanket denial, declaring that Defendants complied with Minnesota’s “broad discovery rules” and accusing Plaintiffs of “going beyond the acceptable bounds” without citing a single example of overreach.

3. One-Sided Application of Candor and Good Faith

• The Court accused Plaintiffs of a “lack of candor” regarding their portrayal of discovery—despite unrebutted evidence of significant disclosures by Plaintiffs (e.g., medical records, over 2,800 pages of documents, security footage, audio transcripts).

• Meanwhile, Defendants admitted they produced no documents at all (in Lisa’s case), or claimed they didn’t retain texts or emails, while asserting privilege without meaningful detail. Yet, Judge Miller praised this conduct as compliant and in good faith, without scrutiny.

4. Misapplication of Common Interest Doctrine

• Judge Miller held that the common interest doctrine protected Defendants’ internal communications, relying on In re Lawrence and Schmitt. However, Plaintiffs clearly distinguished those cases and cited contrary authority suggesting that Minnesota does not recognize a broad common-interest doctrine outside narrow contexts.

• His ruling effectively granted absolute immunity to Defendants’ internal communications without in-camera review, contrary to Plaintiffs’ specific request and standard practice in discovery disputes involving privilege claims.

5. Double Standard on Depositions

• Plaintiffs asked to delay depositions until discovery responses were completed, citing a prior ambush during a deposition using a document that hadn’t been produced. Judge Miller rejected this argument and implied that discovery deficiencies did not justify delaying depositions.

• Yet, in a prior September 27, 2021 order, Judge Miller himself stated: “The Court shall not preclude Defendants from conducting their depositions until Plaintiffs receive all contested discovery responses and documents they have requested.” His December 21 ruling contradicted his earlier stance without explanation.

Summary

Judge Miller’s December 2021 discovery ruling shows a clear and consistent pattern of accepting defense claims without scrutiny, rejecting Plaintiffs’ evidence-based arguments, and applying discovery standards unequally. He did not analyze privilege logs, ignored forensic phone record correlations, and offered no explanation for discrepancies between prior orders and his final ruling.

This conduct demonstrates a significant pro-defense bias and undermines the appearance of neutrality expected in judicial discovery management.

Bias Rating: -8