On January 24, 2022, Judge Kevin Miller signed an Amended Protective Order in Stevenson v. Stevenson, Case No. 56-CV-20-2928. That order, like the original from July 22, 2021, imposed strict confidentiality requirements on litigants—mandating that any court filings or disclosures involving designated “Confidential” information be filed under seal and restricted to authorized persons.
But when Defendants and their attorneys in that case repeatedly violated those terms—filing sensitive, confidential deposition content in public court documents and uploading protected materials to unsecured websites—Judge Miller took no action. Plaintiffs’ counsel formally notified Judge Miller of these violations in a detailed letter dated March 21, 2023. Despite citing binding authority and requesting prompt correction, no sanctions followed. Judge Miller did not issue a ruling, hearing, or even a docket entry addressing these violations. Instead, on June 16, 2023, he dismissed the entire case on summary judgment, stating in his order that “[a]ll other pending motions and requests are dismissed as moot”.
This failure to enforce a court-approved protective order is not a trivial oversight. Protective orders are not window dressing—they are judicial promises to parties that confidential information disclosed during litigation will not be misused or made public without consequence. Judge Miller’s silence in the face of direct violations undermines the integrity of that promise.
This failure is especially troubling given that Judge Miller continues to approve protective orders in other cases. In Christiansen Keefe v. Kronemann Construction (Otter Tail County, 56-CV-23-1802) and Precision Locating v. Starkebaum (56-CV-25-198), Judge Miller recently signed detailed stipulations imposing similar confidentiality restrictions. Litigants in those cases may assume they are protected by enforceable rules—but the record in Stevenson suggests otherwise.
The implications are serious:
- Predictable, uneven enforcement: Judge Miller dismissed Stevenson without resolving the outstanding request concerning protective order violations. This sends a clear message: confidentiality orders may be selectively enforced—or ignored altogether.
- Erosion of good faith discovery: Parties relying on such orders to disclose sensitive health, financial, or personal information may hesitate in the future, knowing their reliance may not be honored.
- Institutional inconsistency: It is unreasonable—and arguably unethical—for a judge to sign off on new protective orders while refusing to enforce nearly identical terms in a case before him.
For litigants in Otter Tail County, this serves as a cautionary tale. Before stipulating to confidentiality provisions under Judge Miller’s jurisdiction, ask a critical question: Will these terms actually be enforced? In Stevenson, the answer was a resounding no.
Justice demands more than a rubber stamp. It requires accountability.
📌 Read more about how Otter Tail County Judge Kevin Miller handled protective order violations in Stevenson v. Stevenson:
🔗 For more on judicial ethics and court reform in Minnesota, visit https://justice-denied.org.