Bias Analysis – March 26, 2021 Change of Venue Order

Bias Assessment of Judge Miller’s March 26, 2021 Change of Venue Order:

Bias Score: +2 (slightly biased in favor of Plaintiffs)

Summary of Findings:

1. Ruling: Judge Miller denied Defendants’ motion to transfer venue from Otter Tail County to Scott County, concluding that part of the cause of action arose in Otter Tail County, and that Defendants had not met the statutory or discretionary standards to compel transfer.

2. Legal Reasoning:

• Cited Minn. Stat. § 542.10 and § 542.11, noting that venue is proper in the county where the cause of action or any part of it arose.
• Found that reputational harm and emotional distress could occur in the plaintiffs’ community of Otter Tail County.
• Acknowledged Plaintiffs’ verified complaint and declarations, which established that emails and statements were received in Otter Tail County, satisfying publication and harm elements of defamation and IIED.
• Rejected Lisa Stevenson-Allen’s argument that she could not receive a fair trial due to her past as a crime victim in Otter Tail County, emphasizing that voir dire could address potential prejudice.
• Concluded that Defendants’ arguments did not rebut Plaintiffs’ showing, and venue should remain.

Transcript Highlights Supporting Analysis:

• Plaintiffs’ attorney (Schapp) presented a clear statutory and factual basis for retaining venue, citing receipt of harmful communications in Otter Tail County and emphasizing the verified complaint and four declarations.
• Defendants’ attorneys (Hansen and Tentinger) argued strongly for a presumption in favor of the Defendants’ counties of residence and criticized “state of mind” injuries as too subjective to support venue.
• Hansen disclosed that her father was retired Judge Mark Hansen, which Judge Miller stated was not a conflict. However, this disclosure was not mentioned in the written order, which could raise concerns in a highly scrutinized case but did not seem to influence the ruling substantively here.
• Judge Miller appeared well-prepared, having read the submissions in advance and provided all sides ample opportunity to be heard.

Reasoning Behind Bias Score (+2):

• The order favored Plaintiffs by rejecting venue transfer, which benefits them procedurally and substantively.
• However, the reasoning was legally grounded and methodical, with no overt favoritism or selective application of law.
• The judge’s conclusion that harm occurred in Otter Tail County and could be geographically localized is a plausible interpretation of defamation and IIED venue law, particularly under Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., 929 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 2019).
• The score is +2 (not higher) because the decision appears judicially sound but slightly leaned toward accepting Plaintiffs’ framing of reputational and emotional harm over Defendants’ emphasis on forum preference and statutory presumptions.

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