Ignoring Contrary Evidence #3

When courts disregard key evidence that contradicts their conclusions, the foundation of justice is compromised. The legal system depends on thorough and balanced consideration of all relevant facts, yet there are troubling cases where inconvenient truths are ignored, mischaracterized, or dismissed without justification. This page examines the consequences of such failures, raising urgent questions about accountability, fairness, and the erosion of public trust in judicial outcomes.

In his June 16, 2023 summary judgment order, Judge Miller dismissed Marie’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claim against Sean. However, several key pieces of evidence were not mentioned by Judge Miller in his order, even though they were in the record.

 

Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze Judge Miller’s order in light of the omitted evidence. The specific AI query was:

I have uploaded Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order. Analyze Judge Miller’s order in relation to the following evidence that was in the record, but was not included in Judge Miller’s summary judgment order:

Two Independent Medical Examination (IME) reports from Plaintiffs’ experts.

One Independent Medical Examination (IME) report from Defendants’ expert. This report was not used by Defendants and, due to its content, was introduced into the record by Plaintiffs.

A date and time stamped security system video (with audio) that showed the exact moment that Marie was notified that Sean had contacted her estranged father, triggering a panic attack.

Additional security system videos that showed two more panic attacks as a direct result of Sean’s repeated contacts with Marie’s estranged father and the aftermath of those events.

One of these panic attacks occurred after Sean was made aware, via email, of Marie’s panic attack after Sean’s first contact and after Sean was also made aware, via email, of Marie’s fear of her father and their abusive childhood relationship. In total, over a dozen emails were sent by Plaintiffs to Sean following his first contact. Sean did not respond to these emails. Instead, Sean printed these emails and sent them all to Marie’s father. These emails contained much detail about Marie, including two of her email addresses.

Determine the significance of Judge Miller’s omission of this evidence and its effect on his dismissal of Marie’s IIED claim against Sean at summary judgment.

 

Note: Marie’s father’s name appeared in the AI response but has been substituted here with [bracketed text] to preserve his privacy.

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

 

After reviewing Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023, Summary Judgment Order and analyzing the evidence you listed that was in the record but omitted from the order, here’s a structured analysis:

1. Judge Miller’s Reasoning for Dismissing Marie’s IIED Claim

Judge Miller dismissed Marie’s IIED claim primarily on the following grounds (summarized from the order):

  • Sean’s conduct—sending three letters to Marie’s estranged father []—was not legally extreme or outrageous.
  • Even if Marie was unusually sensitive, knowledge of her sensitivity did not make Sean’s conduct actionable.
  • The IIED standard is a “narrow slice of human behavior” and courts should not open the door to claims based solely on subjective outrage or hypersensitivity.
  • Marie’s distress was caused by Sean contacting a third party ([Marie’s father]), not directly targeting Marie with abusive acts.
  • General speech and contact, even when intended to upset someone, are not enough to meet the “extreme and outrageous” threshold.

2. Significance of Omitted Record Evidence

The omitted evidence you cited could have changed the factual and legal landscape Judge Miller considered—particularly in evaluating the “extreme and outrageous” standard.

A. Plaintiffs’ IME Reports (Two Expert Reports)

  • Likely provided professional opinions linking Marie’s mental health condition directly to Sean’s actions—establishing causation and severity of emotional distress.
  • Could have demonstrated that Marie’s reaction (panic attacks, severe distress) was not merely subjective hypersensitivity but a medically documented response.
  • Effect: Strong evidence of “severe distress” as an element of IIED—this might have influenced the judge’s conclusion that Marie’s distress was just “hurt feelings” rather than extreme.

B. Defendants’ IME Report (Introduced by Plaintiffs)

  • Since Plaintiffs introduced it, this report likely corroborated Marie’s mental health deterioration due to Sean’s conduct.
  • It could have served as an admission against interest, showing that even Defendants’ own expert recognized the harm caused.
  • Effect: Further undercuts the court’s reasoning that Marie’s distress was subjective or unrelated to Sean’s behavior.

C. Video Evidence (Time-Stamped Footage of Panic Attacks)

  • First video shows Marie’s immediate panic attack upon learning Sean contacted her father—a direct link between Sean’s act and Marie’s severe emotional reaction.
  • Additional videos document further panic attacks caused by repeated contacts with her father after Sean was explicitly notified of Marie’s trauma and fear.
  • Effect:
    • Demonstrates the severity and recurrence of harm—making this far more than trivial distress.
    • Undermines the court’s framing of Sean’s conduct as “petty oppression”—it shows reckless disregard of known, serious psychological harm.

D. Sean’s Conduct Post-Warning (Ignoring Emails, Sending Emails to [Marie’s father])

  • Plaintiffs sent over a dozen emails warning Sean of Marie’s trauma and panic attacks.
  • Instead of stopping, Sean escalated: he forwarded those emails (which detailed Marie’s mental state and contact information) to [Marie’s father].
  • Effect:
    • This establishes not just recklessness but intentional cruelty—Sean knew the harm but increased his attacks.
    • Could elevate the behavior to the “extreme and outrageous” standard legally required for IIED.
    • This level of calculated escalation might have warranted sending the IIED claim to a jury.

3. Legal Impact of the Omission

  • Minnesota law allows IIED claims when conduct is “so atrocious that it passes the boundaries of decency and is utterly intolerable to the civilized community.”
  • Judge Miller did not address:
    • The medical proof of severity from three expert reports.
    • The visual/audio evidence of the direct and severe emotional harm in real-time.
    • Sean’s continued, intentional behavior despite multiple written warnings of Marie’s fragility and trauma.

Materiality of Omission:

  • Highly material. The omitted evidence is the strongest proof of severity and intentional cruelty—two core elements of IIED.
  • By not analyzing this evidence, the court mischaracterized the record as lacking facts that could support the “outrageous” standard.
  • A reasonable jury could see this as predatory conduct aimed at breaking Marie emotionally—well beyond “hurt feelings.”

4. Conclusion:

Judge Miller’s dismissal of Marie’s IIED claim rests on a factual gap created by not considering critical record evidence. The omitted expert reports, video/audio recordings, and Sean’s knowing escalation paint a much more extreme and reckless picture of his behavior.

Impact:

  • The omission likely resulted in premature dismissal of a claim that should have gone to a jury.
  • If appealed, this omission could be argued as reversible error, especially given that IIED is fact-intensive and meant for juries when reasonable minds could differ.
    ChatGPT 4o

    q

    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

    Statcounter