--- title: Bias Analysis – September 28, 2021 Motion to Delay Depositions Order url: https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-september-28-2021-motion-to-delay-depositions-order/ date: 2025-04-13T13:45:26+00:00 modified: 2026-11-06T11:34:18+00:00 lang: en_US --- # Bias Analysis – September 28, 2021 Motion to Delay Depositions Order **Historical AI analysis** Model: ChatGPT 4o · Recorded publication date: April 13, 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** ### Analysis of Judge Miller’s September 28, 2021 Order and the Related September 24, 2021 Hearing Transcript (Motion to Compel & Deposition Delay) #### **Issue: Plaintiffs’ Request to Delay Depositions Pending Discovery Compliance** **Plaintiffs’ Position:** - Plaintiffs sought to delay Defendants’ depositions until after Defendants complied with discovery obligations. - They argued: - Defendants had a pattern of withholding documents, then using those undisclosed materials during depositions. - This conduct prejudiced Plaintiffs’ ability to prepare and respond adequately, especially for third-party deponents like \[Plaintiffs’ daughters\]. - A specific incident was raised where an undisclosed email was used during a deposition and was not even provided to the court reporter initially. - Plaintiffs emphasized that discovery is meant to be reciprocal and fair—not a tool for “trial by ambush.” **Defendants’ Response:** - Defendants argued: - There was no legal basis to preclude depositions due to discovery disputes. - Plaintiffs were engaging in “conspiracy theories” without proving any concrete deficiency in specific discovery responses. - Defendants stated they provided all documents in their possession and were under no obligation to produce records they did not have or remember. - They opposed delaying \[Plaintiffs’ daughters’\] depositions, emphasizing they were central to Defendants’ case and that their depositions had already been delayed. #### **Judge Miller’s Ruling:** - **Plaintiffs’ motion to delay depositions was denied.** - Judge Miller stated: - Plaintiffs did not cite case law supporting preclusion of depositions as a remedy for discovery disputes. - The typical remedy is an order compelling production, not delaying depositions. - The court would not condition the scheduling of depositions on complete satisfaction of Plaintiffs’ discovery demands. ### Evaluation of Judicial Neutrality (Scale from -10 to +10): **Factor** **Observation** **Bias Implication** Consideration of documented issues with withheld discovery Judge did not substantively engage with Plaintiffs’ detailed account of discovery abuse (e.g., ambush with undisclosed email) -2 Responsiveness to fairness concerns in third-party depositions Ignored potential prejudice to Plaintiffs from surprise documents during depositions -2 Application of procedural norms Applied a narrow, formalistic reading of discovery remedies (i.e., no delay without explicit precedent) 0 (neutral on technicality) Weight given to Defendants’ argument of “conspiracy theories” Accepted without scrutiny Defendants’ dismissive framing of Plaintiffs’ forensic call records and detailed memos -2 Willingness to entertain compromise or alternative remedy (e.g., interim protective order) Did not explore or suggest phased discovery or court-reviewed privilege logs as alternatives -1 ### **Bias Score: -7** **Conclusion:** Judge Miller’s decision displayed a significant lean in favor of Defendants. While it is technically accurate that precluding depositions is not a standard remedy for discovery noncompliance, the context—documented withholding, use of undisclosed exhibits during depositions, and lack of case-specific document production by Lisa Stevenson—warranted more judicial scrutiny. His refusal to entertain even limited delay or conditional protections suggests a lack of balanced discretion and a predisposition to discount Plaintiffs’ concerns. This weighs in at a **-7** on the bias 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 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: September 28, 2021 — Doc. 133 Hearing transcript: September 24, 2021 — Doc. 231 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. ## Related reporting - [The Privilege Log Problem: 2 Sentences vs. 111 Pages](https://justice-denied.org/the-privilege-log-problem/)