Cherry-Picking Facts at Summary Judgment

The manipulation of facts at the summary judgment stage, as detailed on this page, exposes a deeply troubling flaw in the judicial process. Rather than allowing a jury to weigh the evidence, judges can—and often do—dismiss cases by selectively highlighting information that favors one side while ignoring inconvenient or contradictory facts. This practice distorts the truth-seeking function of the courts and strips litigants of their right to a fair trial. The result is a system where outcomes may be determined not by the strength of the evidence, but by a judge’s unilateral framing of the narrative.

Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order quoted Sean’s letter to Marie’s father, but did not quote any of Craig and Marie’s emails to Sean, Lisa, Ashley, or Lonna. This seemed unusual, given that we thought that judges were supposed to describe the facts of the case in a neutral way. Judge Miller’s actions seemed especially unusual at summary judgment, where judges are supposed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, in this instance, Plaintiffs.

As a result of these irregularities, Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze Judge Miller’s order. The specific AI query was:

Consider the following information for a Minnesota civil lawsuit:

The first Summons and Complaint was served on November 19, 2020.

The lawsuit was filed in Otter Tail County Minnesota on November 25, 2020.

Plaintiff Craig Stevenson alleged defamation against Sean and Renee, and civil conspiracy against the remaining defendants.

Plaintiff Marie Stevenson alleged Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) against Sean and civil conspiracy against the remaining defendants.

I have uploaded a file that contains the following information:

Emails between the parties. If the content of an email is not confidential, the email content is included.

I have also uploaded Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order.

Analyze this data.

Is it unusual that Judge Miller quoted the entirety of Sean’s third letter to Marie’s father in his summary judgment order but did not quote any of Craig or Marie’s June 2020 emails to Sean, Lisa, Ashley, or Lonna?

Did Judge Miller accurately describe Craig’s emails in his summary judgment order?

Did Judge Miller view this evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party?

Note: This query was segmented into three separate queries.

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Yes, it is unusual and potentially problematic that Judge Kevin Miller quoted Sean’s entire third letter to Marie’s father but did not quote any of Craig or Marie’s emails to Sean, especially given the context and claims in the case. Here’s why:

⚖️ Legal Relevance and Balance

In a summary judgment ruling, the judge is required to:

View the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (in this case, Craig and Marie).
Evaluate all relevant material facts and evidence, including competing narratives and emotional impact.

🔹 Sean’s third letter to [Marie’s father] (quoted in full):

Was presented by the defense to show his intent was benign.
Judge Miller appeared to use it to frame Sean’s actions as polite and rational, not extreme.

🔹 Craig and Marie’s emails:

Contained direct emotional responses, including panic attacks, safety fears, and legal threats.
Their omission removes the plaintiffs’ voice from the factual record.
These emails were arguably far more relevant to Marie’s IIED claim than Sean’s letter was to his defense.

⚠️ Possible Consequences of the Omission

Creates a misleading record: By quoting only the letter that minimizes harm and ignoring those that describe harm, the court’s factual summary becomes imbalanced.
Undermines Marie’s claim: Emotional distress is a fact-based tort. Her real-time emotional reactions are core evidence.
Raises fairness concerns: It may suggest that the judge favored the defense’s narrative, which is concerning under the summary judgment standard.

🧠 Judicial Best Practices

A fair summary judgment order should:

Quote or summarize evidence from both parties.
Show that the court understood the emotional and factual complexity of the dispute.
Avoid giving the appearance of cherry-picking facts.

Judge Miller’s selective quoting undermines confidence in the neutrality and thoroughness of his analysis—especially when Marie’s trauma was the central issue in the IIED claim.

Judge Miller quoted the entirety of Sean’s June 13, 2020 letter to Marie’s estranged father but excluded emotionally significant emails from both Marie and Craig:

Marie’s June 5 email directly described the emotional harm and distress she experienced.
Craig’s June 7 email reinforced the psychological impact and requested the harassment stop.

This contrast highlights a judicial imbalance in the order’s factual narrative.

No, Judge Miller did not accurately describe Craig’s emails in his June 16, 2023 summary judgment order. Here’s why:

⚖️ What Craig’s Emails Actually Contained

Craig sent multiple detailed, emotionally charged emails to Sean and others, including:

A June 7, 2020 email stating that Marie had a panic attack after Sean’s letter to her father and that audio of it was captured on their home security system:

“I found the audio from our security system where you can clearly hear Marie having the panic attack… if that would help you to decide whether Sean and Lisa should stop tormenting Marie.”
A June 6–7 exchange with Lonna and Lisa, asking whether they had helped Sean locate [Marie’s father], expressing alarm at Sean’s contact with Marie’s father.
An August 17, 2020 message explaining that Sean mailed 25 pages of private emails to [Marie’s father] after being warned that this “put our family in danger,” and that the emails revealed Marie’s private addresses and other sensitive data.
A June 6, 2020 private note to Ashley, distinguishing between Sean and others in terms of responsibility, and describing the serious emotional fallout from Sean’s actions.

🧾 What Judge Miller Wrote in His Order

Judge Miller briefly referenced that Craig and Marie “expressed dismay and outrage” about Sean’s letters to [Marie’s father] and mentioned a panic attack. However:

He did not quote from Craig’s emails.
He did not acknowledge the letter from Marie’s attorney.
He did not reference the warning about danger, the data breach, or Craig’s security system evidence.
He characterized Craig’s responses as emotional but failed to cite the specifics that would support Marie’s IIED claim.

This omission obscures the plaintiffs’ strongest factual support and tilts the factual framing toward the defense.

🔍 Bottom Line

Judge Miller’s treatment of Craig’s emails was:

Superficial: Ignored their detail and emotional/legal substance.
Unbalanced: Contrasted sharply with his full reproduction of Sean’s letter.
Misleading: By excluding these key emails, the order downplayed the severity of the conduct and the evidence of Marie’s resulting distress.

Based on a thorough comparison of Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order and the emails from Craig and Marie Stevenson as captured in the XML file, here’s an analytical response to your three questions:

1. Is it unusual that Judge Miller quoted the entirety of Sean’s third letter to Marie’s father in his summary judgment order but did not quote any of Craig or Marie’s June 2020 emails to Sean, Lisa, Ashley, or Lonna?

Yes, it is unusual. Here’s why:

Judge Miller extensively quoted Sean’s letter, which contained serious allegations against Craig, including implied threats and past misconduct. This letter was framed by the judge as highly relevant to the defamation and IIED claims.
In contrast, Judge Miller did not quote any June 2020 emails authored by Craig or Marie—emails which could have offered counter-narratives, context, or clarified disputed facts. Those emails are part of the timeline and were sent in direct response to defamatory statements and accusations.
Omitting direct evidence from the plaintiffs (Craig and Marie), especially contemporaneous email communications, while extensively quoting a defendant’s accusatory statements, raises serious concerns about whether the court fairly considered both sides’ narratives.

2. Did Judge Miller accurately describe Craig’s emails in his summary judgment order?

Not entirely. Here’s what the evidence suggests:

Judge Miller summarized Craig’s July 2019 email exchange with Sean by saying it “involved a rehashing of the failed 2006 visit” and characterized Craig’s response to Lisa’s statements about Marie’s fear as primarily concerned with the mention of a “book.”
However, the emails from Craig in the XML file reveal nuanced, contextual rebuttals to Sean’s and Lisa’s claims—such as detailed explanations, family history, and concern for repairing relationships.
Craig’s tone in the emails (from June and July 2020) was often measured, focused on correcting the record, and expressing concern about reputational harm. Judge Miller’s summary did not fairly represent the substance or intent of those communications.

3. Did Judge Miller view this evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party?

No, the order does not appear to have done so. Under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 56, at the summary judgment stage, the judge must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (i.e., the plaintiffs, Craig and Marie).

Key issues:

The judge accepted Sean’s and Renee’s statements at face value—including serious accusations that Craig was potentially dangerous—without acknowledging the countervailing explanations and denials by Craig and Marie found in the June 2020 emails.
While Sean’s letter was quoted in full, exculpatory or rebuttal evidence was not afforded the same treatment, even when directly relevant to contested issues (e.g., the existence and nature of “the book,” Marie’s fear, Craig’s intent).
Disputed factual issues—especially those turning on credibility or interpretation of written communications—should not have been resolved at summary judgment. Yet, the order appears to do just that.

Conclusion:

Judge Miller’s summary judgment order exhibits imbalanced treatment of the parties’ evidence, fails to accurately characterize Craig’s communications, and does not adhere to the standard of viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. These issues may amount to judicial error or bias, particularly given the stark disparity in how each side’s evidence was presented.

ChatGPT 4o

Important Note!

The Artificial Intelligence analysis above reflects the unusual and undisclosed relationships between judicial officers in this case.

Defense attorney Kirsten Hansen is the daughter of retired Otter Tail County Judge Mark F. Hansen. Judge Hansen’s former law clerk, James E. Morrison, authored at least 13 orders for Judge Miller in Plaintiffs’ case, including this one. Neither Judge Miller nor Attorney Hansen disclosed the prior relationship between Clerk Morrison and Judge Hansen to Plaintiffs.

In Skarsten, we reversed summary judgment for the insurer based on the resident-relative provision and cautioned “a court must not rely on selected facts in order to justify a conclusion.” 381 N.W.2d at 19. Here, the district court’s summary-judgment decision rested on “selected facts” because it ignored relevant evidence favorable to appellants’ position, drew inferences unfavorable to appellants, and failed to view the record evidence in a light favorable to appellants.

Progressive Ins. v. Abel, No. A21-1267, 2022 WL 2124869, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022)

Minnesota Court of Appeals