---
title: Bias Analysis – December 6, 2022 Six Pre-Trial Motions Order
url: https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-6-2022-six-pre-trial-motions-order/
date: 2025-04-11T21:32:37+00:00
modified: 2026-11-06T11:35:34+00:00
lang: en_US
---

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

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

This published AI analysis is preserved as part of Justice-Denied’s history.

**Later reporting:** [Revisiting Our Early AI Analyses: The Record, the Law, and Our Experience](https://justice-denied.org/revisiting-our-early-ai-analyses/#historical-scores).

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

## **ChatGPT (AI) Analysis**

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 Bias Indicator

Score −8

Very strong appearance of favoritism toward Defendants

−8

−10  −5  0  +5  +10

Favors Defendants  Neutral  Favors Plaintiffs

*AI assessment of the appearance of impartiality.*

*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 6, 2022 — Doc. 366](https://justice-denied.org/pdfviewer/stevenson-56-cv-20-2928-doc-366/)

[Hearing transcript: November 7, 2022 — Doc. 364](https://justice-denied.org/pdfviewer/stevenson-56-cv-20-2928-doc-364/)

To locate the court copies, 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.