--- title: Bias Analysis – October 13, 2023 Costs and Disbursements Order url: https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-october-13-2023-costs-and-disbursements-order/ date: 2025-04-12T14:50:06+00:00 modified: 2026-11-06T11:36:15+00:00 lang: en_US --- # Bias Analysis – October 13, 2023 Costs and Disbursements Order **Historical AI analysis** Model: ChatGPT 4o · Recorded publication date: April 12, 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 AI analysis](https://eadn-wc02-18301506.nxedge.io/cdn/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ChatGPT-Logo.png) ## **ChatGPT (AI) Analysis** **Bias Analysis of Judge Kevin Miller’s October 13, 2023 Order on Costs and Disbursements** **Bias Score: -7 (toward Defendants)** Scale: -10 (highly biased toward Defendants) to +10 (highly biased toward Plaintiffs), with 0 as neutral. ### Summary of Analysis: Judge Miller’s **October 13, 2023 order** awards Defendants **$60,757.12** in costs and disbursements despite the existence of **undisputed misconduct by Defendants**, including: - **Spoliation sanctions** against Sean Stevenson for deletion of text messages and lying under oath; - **Sanctions against Defendants’ counsel** for improperly terminating Lisa Stevenson-Allen’s deposition; - An **acknowledged need to re-depose** these same Defendants because of their misconduct. These serious discovery abuses were acknowledged and sanctioned earlier in the case, yet **Judge Miller still taxed nearly all deposition and forensic costs to Plaintiffs**, even when they directly stemmed from Defendants’ bad faith conduct. This heavily discounts the culpability of the sanctioned parties. ### Key Findings Supporting Bias Score: #### 1\. **Disregard of Defendants’ Spoliation and Perjury as Basis to Shift Costs** > Judge Miller found that Sean Stevenson lied under oath and deleted relevant messages. Yet, the Court still awarded **50% of Carney Forensics' costs** (over $9,300) and nearly all related phone transport and handling fees to Defendants. > ➤ **Bias indicator**: Rewarding a party for forensic fees necessitated by their own misconduct shifts the burden of their wrongdoing to the innocent party. #### 2\. **Awarding Costs for Depositions Necessitated by Defendants’ Misconduct** > The Court awarded costs for nearly every deposition, including: - Two full deposition transcript fees per witness (for separate defense counsel) totaling **over 30 entries**; - Partial costs for Lisa Stevenson-Allen’s **interrupted deposition**, even though the Court previously sanctioned her for counsel’s improper termination; - Costs for Sean Stevenson’s **second deposition**, necessitated only because he lied under oath in his first. > ➤ Judge Miller did exclude some portions of these fees (e.g., Sean’s second deposition, Lisa’s first), but the overall deposition costs were still mostly taxed to Plaintiffs — despite the misconduct being the Defendants’ fault. #### 3\. **Allowance of Weakly Justified or Unsupported Costs** > Multiple cost categories lacked invoices or explanations (e.g., subpoena processing in California, duplicative medical record charges), yet were still accepted. Judge Miller gave **Defendants the benefit of the doubt**, despite his own acknowledgment that documentation was incomplete. #### 4\. **Judicial Tone and Selective Emphasis** > The memorandum is presented as "thorough" and appears "balanced" on the surface, but it consistently excuses or minimizes misconduct by Defendants while holding Plaintiffs to a high evidentiary and procedural standard (e.g., requiring Plaintiffs to prove exact usage of each deposition at summary judgment while giving Defendants broad leeway). ### Hearing Transcript Highlights Supporting Bias Score: - **Plaintiffs' Counsel (Mr. Schaap)** correctly noted that the burden was on Defendants to prove costs were reasonable, and that Rule 54 does not allow late evidentiary supplementation. - Schaap also emphasized that some of the Defendants’ fees were for depositions or expert services directly tied to misconduct (e.g., spoliation). - Judge Miller **did not challenge or probe the defense arguments**, nor did he ask questions about inconsistent documentation or burden-shifting from spoliating parties. ### Conclusion: Despite a superficial appearance of balance, the **substance of Judge Miller’s rulings on costs reveals a strong and consistent pattern of favoring Defendants**: - He frequently **minimized or excused** defense misconduct (even when previously sanctioned), - **Accepted inadequately supported cost claims** from Defendants, - **Taxed Plaintiffs for costs stemming directly from Defendants’ wrongful conduct**, and - **Penalized Plaintiffs for failing to meet burdens that the law places on Defendants.** These factors, taken together, support a **bias score of -7** on the judicial neutrality scale. AI Bias Indicator Score −7 Strong appearance of favoritism toward Defendants −7 −10 −5 0 +5 +10 Favors Defendants Neutral Favors Plaintiffs *AI assessment of the appearance of impartiality.* *End of AI-generated analysis Model: 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: October 13, 2023 — Doc. 466 Hearing transcript: September 25, 2023 — Doc. 469 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.