Denial of Discovery Conference

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Yes, there are notable irregularities in how Judge Kevin Miller handled discovery disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendants, and these disparities suggest a discernible imbalance favoring Defendants. Below is an analysis of key inconsistencies between the two December 6, 2022 orders: Judge Miller’s ruling on six pre-trial motions (Doc. 366) and his denial of Plaintiffs’ request for a discovery conference (Doc. 368).

⚖️ Unequal Treatment in Discovery Disputes

1. Spoliation and Deletion of Evidence

• Against Defendants: Judge Miller found that Defendant Sean Stevenson intentionally deleted text messages after litigation began and lied under oath about it. Yet, the court:

  • Only sanctioned Sean for costs tied to forensic exams of other Defendants’ phones.

  • Denied all sanctions against Renee and Lisa Stevenson-Allen despite clear forensic evidence that hundreds of potentially relevant messages were deleted and unrecoverable.

  • Rejected an adverse inference instruction, even though Sean admitted to deleting messages after being served and after a cease-and-desist letter.

• Against Plaintiffs: No reciprocal scrutiny or sanction findings were made against Defendants despite:

  • Evidence that Sean, Lisa, and Renee deleted over 300 messages.

  • Testimony inconsistencies.

  • Demonstrated withholding of responsive communications.

2. Defendants’ Discovery Requests Were Granted or Reserved

• Judge Miller:

  • Granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff Marie Stevenson’s medical records and permitted further interrogatories, with an open door for more relief.

  • Granted Defendants’ motion to compel production of a video of Marie’s panic attack.

  • Reserved ruling on two other Defendants’ requests, including compelling production of Craig Stevenson’s book and a July 9, 2019 video. This leaves the door open for Defendants to revisit these requests.

3. Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests Were Denied or Dismissed

• Despite identifying 67 unrecoverable, potentially relevant messages and citing forensic expert analysis, Plaintiffs were denied discovery relief or spoliation findings except for narrow cost reimbursement.

• Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration on discovery was denied, with the court accusing them of seeking overly broad discovery and trying to use litigation to “exert control” over their relatives.

• Request for a Rule 16 discovery conference was denied outright, even though portions of related motions were explicitly reserved in Judge Miller’s concurrent ruling. This is procedurally irregular: courts typically encourage conferences to resolve discovery efficiently.

🧭 Significance of Judge Miller’s Actions

1. Perceived Bias Toward Defendants
   Judge Miller repeatedly credited Defendants’ rationales for deleting messages—such as routine deletion or limited device storage—while discrediting or minimizing Plaintiffs’ concerns, despite forensic confirmation of substantial data loss.

2. Unbalanced Application of Proportionality

   • Defendants were allowed discovery into intimate and sensitive aspects of Plaintiffs’ mental health history.

   • Plaintiffs were denied discovery even into Defendants’ litigation strategy and communications after a preservation notice was issued, a time when the duty to preserve was clearly triggered.

3. Chilling of Discovery Enforcement
   By denying Plaintiffs a discovery conference while still reserving the very motions tied to that request, the court foreclosed a procedural avenue for clarifying scope and obligations—possibly chilling further efforts to enforce legitimate discovery rights.

4. Undermining Integrity of the Process
   Judge Miller’s minimization of spoliation, refusal to apply adverse inferences, and repeated invocation of “minimal prejudice” to Plaintiffs despite unrecoverable data implies an unwillingness to ensure fair and balanced discovery compliance.

📉 Bias Score (Discovery Context)

On a scale of -10 (highly biased toward Defendants) to +10 (highly biased toward Plaintiffs), Judge Miller’s actions score approximately -7.

This rating reflects:

• Repeated deference to defense explanations.

• Dismissal of forensic irregularities.

• One-sided discovery enforcement.

• Procedural inconsistency in reserving motions while denying related procedural requests.