Ignoring the Evidence and the Rules

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Here’s an analysis of the significance of Craig Stevenson’s declaration when considered against Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 Summary Judgment Order:

🔎 Key Summary from Craig Stevenson’s Declaration

Information underlying Craig’s declaration focuses on AT&T call records showing 51 deleted texts exchanged between Defendants Sean and Lisa from May 25, 2020, to June 8, 2020 — immediately surrounding Sean’s first letter to Marie’s estranged father, [].

Important points from Craig’s statement:

Forensic evidence confirmed all 51 texts were deleted from both Sean and Lisa’s phones.
Plaintiffs alerted Judge Miller repeatedly (in briefs and oral argument) to the significance of this spoliation under Rule 56.04 (MN rule for handling spoliation at the summary judgment stage).
Despite this, Judge Miller’s Order does not mention or apply Rule 56.04 and treats the record as if the missing communications did not exist.

🔎 Judge Miller’s Handling of Spoliation (Summary Judgment Order Highlights)

After reviewing the summary judgment order, these observations stand out:

Spoliation is not addressed in the Order, even though the record shows Plaintiffs raised it repeatedly.
Judge Miller dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim against Sean based on:
- A finding that Sean’s letters to [Marie’s father] were not extreme or outrageous.
- A belief that Sean’s conduct was not “directed at” Marie.
Judge Miller accepted Defendants’ narrative as undisputed, including that Sean’s motivation was concern for Marie — despite the fact that critical contemporaneous communications (texts) that could have tested that claim were destroyed.

🔎 Legal Significance of the Omitted Spoliation Discussion

This omission is significant because:

1️⃣ Spoliation Doctrine (Rule 56.04)

Rule 56.04 requires courts at the summary judgment stage to consider the prejudicial effect of spoliated evidence on the non-moving party’s ability to oppose summary judgment.
Plaintiffs specifically invoked Rule 56.04 and showed that Defendants’ spoliation undermined the available evidence regarding intent, motive, planning, and knowledge — all crucial to the IIED analysis.

2️⃣ State of Mind / Intent Was Central

The entire legal standard for IIED turns on whether the conduct was extreme and intended to cause distress.
Deleting 51 texts around this specific event (the first [Marie’s father] letter) could directly undermine Defendants’ asserted benign motive.
By not factoring in spoliation, Judge Miller arguably assumed facts favorable to the spoliating party (Sean/Lisa), contrary to spoliation law.

3️⃣ Contrast with Grosz Case

The comparison to Judge Miller’s own Grosz ruling is compelling:
- There, Miller denied a motion because of prejudice from potential spoliation, even though the defendant had already inspected the property and had hundreds of photos.
- Here, by contrast, direct evidence (texts) was completely deleted, yet no prejudice was found or analyzed.
This inconsistency suggests unequal application of spoliation principles.

🔎 Why Information Underlying Craig’s Declaration Strengthens Plaintiffs’ Argument

Craig’s new sworn detail solidifies:

The extent and timing of the spoliation — 51 deleted texts during the critical period of planning/contacting [Marie’s father].
The centrality of the missing evidence to Plaintiffs’ IIED claim — intent and motive were the precise issues decided in Defendants’ favor.
The prejudice caused — Plaintiffs were left with no ability to rebut Defendants’ motive narrative or present potential evidence of malicious intent.

🟢 Conclusion & Legal Impact

Craig’s declaration heightens the significance of Judge Miller’s failure to:

Apply Rule 56.04.
Analyze the prejudicial impact of the spoliated texts.
Address how missing evidence undermines the confidence in his conclusions about Sean’s intent and the “extreme and outrageous” standard.

This strengthens a potential argument for appeal or post-judgment relief:

Reversible error may exist if the court granted summary judgment without addressing spoliation that directly impacted the core issues.
Prejudice is self-evident: Defendants deleted key evidence that could have influenced the outcome.

Very strong appearance of favoritism toward Defendants

−9

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.

Original AI Query – Click to View

In Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order dismissing Plaintiffs claims, there was no mention of the 51 deleted text messages, between Sean and Lisa, surrounding the most significant event in this case. In fact, the topic of Defendants’ deleted text messages, which surrounded every significant event, was omitted entirely. There was also no analysis of the prejudicial effect of this deleted evidence under Rule 56.04.

Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze the significance of Judge Miller’s omission of all references to this deleted evidence and his failure to follow Rule 56.04. The specific AI query was:

I have uploaded Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order. I will also include information underlying a sworn declaration from Plaintiff Craig Stevenson. Analyze Judge Miller’s order as it relates to the additional information from Craig’s declaration to determine its significance.
1. Based on information gathered from call detail records provided by AT&T, a total of 51 texts were exchanged between Sean and Lisa surrounding Sean’s first contact with Marie’s estranged father. (Doc. 396, at 49.)
2. These texts, exchanged between May 25, 2020 and June 8, 2020, were never produced by Defendants and forensic examinations of Sean’s and Lisa’s cell phones indicated all 51 texts had been deleted from both phones.
3. In addition, spoliated texts between Sean and Lisa surround nearly every significant event in this case. (Doc. 396, at 47-50.)
4. This information was in the record prior to summary judgment and was known to Judge Miller:
In their briefing, Plaintiffs identify 67 unrecoverable messages they believe are likely to have been relevant based on their dates. (Doc. 287, at 16; Doc. 298, at 16; Doc. 295, 16-17) Based on its review of the record as a whole, the Court agrees that, of the messages Plaintiffs identify, the messages exchanged between Sean and Lisa on two dates in May and June 2020, around the time Sean sent letters to [Marie’s father], would likely have been relevant to show Sean and Lisa’s knowledge, planning, motive, intent, or other state of mind.
(Doc. 366, at 11.)
5. During the March 15, 2023 Summary Judgment Hearing, Plaintiffs’ Attorney, Matthew Schaap, also made Judge Miller aware of the impact of Defendants’ spoliated evidence prior to his summary judgment order:
I also note, Your Honor, that you know Rule 56.04 is not one that the Court I think took lightly when it issued its earlier order as to the spoliation discussion. The Court invited the plaintiffs to present evidence that they had been hindered in defending this motion or motions for summary judgment by the limited discovery that was provided and the spoliation that occurred. We’ve now essentially asserted that it’s not a throwaway. It’s not a request that should be ignored or minimized. We’ve gone into great depth, both before this and in this opposition to illustrate why Rule 56.04 should be applied and the Court should not grant summary judgment at this stage, on this record.
(Doc. 421, Tr. 61:1-13.)
6. Judge Miller did not apply Rule 56.04 and did not mention the spoliation of this critical evidence in Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Order.
7. Judge Miller concluded that Sean’s actions were not extreme and outrageous and were not directed at Marie despite the fact that almost the entirety of the evidence surrounding this event had been spoliated by Sean and Lisa.
8. Judge Miller granted summary judgment without considering the prejudicial effect of this spoliated evidence.
9. However, Judge Miller was much more concerned about the potential prejudicial effect of spoliated evidence in a different case. (See David E Grosz and David E Grosz, as trustee of the David E. Grosz Trust U/A dated February 26, 1996 vs Radiant Creative Homes, LLC a/k/a Radiant Creative Homes LLC.)
10. In his March 18, 2022 Order and Memorandum Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint in Grosz, Judge Miller stated:
However, the Court does believe that this Motion to Amend would be unfairly prejudicial to Defendant. It has been years since Plaintiffs initiated this Complaint, and the parties have been through extensive discovery over this time period. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend would drastically alter the course of this lawsuit at a very late stage in the suit itself. Further, the Court is concerned with the potential spoilation of evidence due to Plaintiffs’ destruction of Defendant’s construction, which would make it incredibly difficult for Defendant to fairly defend itself from Plaintiffs’ proposed claims. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint shall be denied.
Grosz, Court File No. 56-CV-18-3239, Doc. 84, at 9.
11. In Grosz, Judge Miller was concerned about the prejudicial effect of potentially spoliated evidence, even though a tremendous amount of high-quality relevant evidence was still available:
There is absolutely no question that Radiant had ample opportunities to inspect the home, and in fact did inspect the home prior to litigation, but chose to sit on its hands for almost four (4) years and now has the audacity to say that Grosz destroyed evidence. The further reality is that Grosz has produced almost four hundred (400) documents, the majority of those being photographs of the property before and during remediation, not to mention an inspection report containing detailed explanations for each photograph. Finally, Radiant even had some of its subcontractors inspect the home. (Inspection Sign—In Sheet, Ex. of the McCamy Dec). This is not [a] case about spoliation.
Grosz, Court File No. 56-CV-18-3239, Doc. 80, at 7.

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