Bias Analysis – December 6, 2022 Six Pre-Trial Motions Order

After reviewing both the December 6, 2022 order and the November 7, 2022 hearing transcript, Judge Kevin Miller’s handling of the spoliation and discovery motions reflects a discernible pattern of selective skepticism and asymmetric leniency that, on balance, favors the Defendants. Here’s the breakdown of the rating and the basis:

🔍 Bias Rating: -8 (Bias toward Defendants)

This rating reflects significant judicial bias in favor of the Defendants, particularly in how Judge Miller:

• discounted clear evidence of spoliation and perjury by Sean Stevenson;
• denied spoliation sanctions for Renee and Lisa despite strong circumstantial and forensic evidence of deletions;
• imposed cost-shifting instead of meaningful sanctions for Sean’s admitted and intentional deletion of relevant messages after litigation began;
• rejected adverse-inference sanctions based on a flawed analysis of “prejudice” and intent, despite Sean’s perjury and the destruction of potentially critical communications.

🧾 Key Issues Supporting the Rating

1. Sean’s Perjury and Spoliation Treated Minimally

• Sean admitted to lying under oath in his deposition and knowingly deleting relevant text messages after litigation began.
• Judge Miller acknowledged this misconduct but imposed only cost reimbursement (for forensic exams of other defendants’ phones).
• The court refused to issue an adverse inference, even though Sean admitted he deleted “the smoking guns” (his words, paraphrased) — a textbook case for adverse-inference sanctions under Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.05(b).

2. Exculpatory Acceptance of Renee and Lisa’s Claims

• The judge accepted at face value that Renee and Lisa habitually deleted messages for personal or work-related reasons.
• He declined to infer intent or coordinated spoliation, even though:
  • Renee and Lisa’s deletions coincided with key case dates;
  • forensic evidence showed hundreds of deleted or missing texts;
  • some texts recovered were relevant, and others could not be recovered;
  • at least one was identified as falsely denied under oath (Renee denied deleting texts relevant to the lawsuit — contradicted by forensic recovery).

3. Minimization of Evidentiary Harm

• Despite 67 messages flagged by Plaintiffs as likely relevant (based on timing and content), Judge Miller concluded the evidentiary loss was “minimal or nonexistent.”
• This is inconsistent with precedent like Miller v. Lankow, 801 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2011), which stresses both prejudice and fault in spoliation analysis — particularly where evidence was intentionally deleted after notice.

4. One-Sided Discovery Rulings

• Plaintiffs’ detailed, multi-letter efforts to resolve discovery issues were downplayed.
• In contrast, Defendants’ procedural defects (e.g., failure to include § 549.211 certification) were not held against them.
• Defendants were rewarded with compelled production from Plaintiffs (e.g., Marie’s medical providers and panic attack video), while Defendants’ discovery violations were mostly excused.

🧠 Additional Observations

• Judge Miller’s ruling gave greater weight to Defendant testimony and minimized contradictory evidence — even where their explanations were undermined by forensic findings.
• The order often took Defendant affidavits at face value, while casting doubt on Plaintiffs’ claims and inferences, despite supporting documentation.
• The rejection of the spoliation claims against Renee and Lisa contradicted his own acknowledgment that relevant messages were missing and deleted.

If you’re evaluating this for a judicial conduct complaint or appeal, these findings support an argument of judicial partiality and failure to properly apply Minnesota’s spoliation and evidentiary rules.

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