Mischaracterized Testimony and Ignored Evidence Deletion

In a Minnesota civil case, recent analysis raises serious concerns about the court’s handling of critical evidence. The judge mischaracterized deposition testimony and overlooked clear indications of spoliation—deleted messages that could have impacted the outcome. Despite being presented with key admissions under oath and forensic findings, the court failed to address or acknowledge them in its final rulings, calling into question the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.

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

Consider a Minnesota civil case before Otter Tail District Court Judge Kevin Miller. I have uploaded Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order and the hearing transcript. Analyze the order and transcript in light of the following information from the July 22, 2024 sworn declaration of Plaintiff Craig Stevenson:

In his December 6, 2022 order, Judge Miller totally ignored evidence that Sean had posted a public Google review about Plaintiffs, shortly before litigation began, deleted the review shortly after litigation began, and repeatedly made false statements, under oath, about posting the review and deleting it. (Doc. 259, at 37.)

In his December 6, 2022 order, Judge Miller also stated:
Sean testified in his second deposition that, on two occasions, in the weeks after receiving Plaintiffs’ initial complaint, he went through his phone and deleted messages that he felt Craig would “twist” — not necessarily in the sense of using them in litigation, but in a personal capacity. (Id. at 9:2-7, 9:21-10:15, 10:23-11:7, 16:6-17:4)” (Doc. 366, at 11.) (emphasis added)

However, Judge Miller miscited and mischaracterized Sean’s deposition testimony because Sean testified that he knew the deleted messages could potentially be used as evidence in this case. (Doc. 351, Ex. 8: Sean’s Oct. 12, 2022 Depo. Tr. 21:21-22:5.)

In his order, Judge Miller cited Sean’s deposition transcript 12 times, at 8:16-17, 9:2-7, 9:21-10:15, 10:16-19, 10:23-11:7, 11:8-10, 11:11-22, 12:11-15, 13:2-12, 16:6-17:4, 17:17-20, and 47:1-14, but failed to cite the same transcript at 21:21-22:5 where this key testimony is located.

Sean’s testimony was specifically pointed out to Judge Miller in Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum of Law In Support of Their Motion for Spoliation Sanctions and Other Relief Against Defendant Sean Stevenson filed on October 31, 2022. (Doc. 357, at 7.)

Judge Miller concealed and mischaracterized this evidence in his December 6, 2022 Order.

Judge Miller did not mention Sean’s deletion of evidence in Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Order.

I have also uploaded Judge Miller’s December 6, 2022 order and the hearing transcript. Analyze the order and the transcript.

Did Judge Miller handle these issues properly?

Was Judge Miller’s statement that Sean deleted messages “not necessarily in the sense of using them in litigation, but in a personal capacity” accurate? If Judge Miller’s statement was not accurate, explain the significance.

Determine the significance of Judge Miller ignoring a portion of Sean’s deposition testimony.

Determine the significance of all of this information on Judge Miller’s orders.

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Based on a detailed review of Judge Kevin Miller’s December 6, 2022 order, the June 16, 2023 summary judgment order, and the associated hearing transcripts, there are serious concerns about how the judge handled spoliation-related evidence and deposition testimony from Defendant Sean Stevenson, particularly in light of Plaintiff Craig Stevenson’s July 22, 2024 sworn declaration. Here’s an analysis organized by your key questions:

❓ Did Judge Miller handle these issues properly?

No. Judge Miller did not accurately or comprehensively address the issues surrounding spoliation of evidence by Sean Stevenson and misstatements made under oath. Here’s why:

Judge Miller’s December 6, 2022 Order completely ignored crucial deposition testimony where Sean admitted deleting messages he believed could be used as evidence in this litigation (Sean’s 10/12/22 Depo., Tr. 21:21–22:5).
The order mischaracterizes Sean’s intent by stating the deletions were not necessarily to avoid litigation but to avoid personal conflict with Craig. This is contradicted by Sean’s own testimony.
Plaintiffs specifically highlighted this testimony in their Reply Memorandum (Doc. 357, at 7), yet Judge Miller failed to acknowledge or cite it.

❓ Was Judge Miller’s statement about Sean deleting messages “not necessarily in the sense of using them in litigation, but in a personal capacity” accurate?

No, it was inaccurate and misleading.

Sean clearly testified that he knew the messages he deleted could potentially be used as evidence in the case (10/12/22 Depo., Tr. 21:21–22:5).
Judge Miller cited the deposition multiple times (12 instances), but omitted this specific and highly relevant portion of testimony.
His statement re-characterizes the deletion as personal rather than litigation-related, which downplays the legal implications of spoliation and suggests either a negligent or intentional misrepresentation of the record.

❓ What is the significance of Judge Miller ignoring this portion of Sean’s deposition?

This omission undermines the integrity of Judge Miller’s spoliation ruling.
Ignoring directly contradictory testimony from Sean allowed Judge Miller to avoid issuing an adverse inference or more severe spoliation sanction, which could have dramatically shifted the case’s trajectory.
Sean was sanctioned only for the cost of Plaintiffs’ forensic analysis, but no broader sanctions or inferences were issued, in part due to Judge Miller’s failure to engage with this critical evidence.

❓ What is the significance of Judge Miller not addressing Sean’s spoliation in the June 16, 2023 Summary Judgment Order?

Omitting any reference to the spoliation or Sean’s false statements under oath in the final ruling effectively erased a central dispute over evidence integrity from the summary judgment analysis.
This likely prejudiced Plaintiffs, as Judge Miller’s final decision leaned heavily on Sean’s credibility and communications—many of which Plaintiffs argued had been selectively deleted.
By not addressing spoliation, Judge Miller avoided analyzing whether Plaintiffs were deprived of material evidence that could affect the fact-finding and credibility determinations central to their defamation and emotional distress claims.

❗ Summary of Judicial Concerns:

Judge Miller’s handling raises red flags about possible judicial misconduct or bias:

Mischaracterization of deposition testimony.
Omission of relevant evidence already presented in briefing.
Failure to mention spoliation in a final dispositive ruling despite prior findings and evidence of deletion.

These combined issues call into question the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings, particularly as the judge disregarded Sean’s own admissions and denied relief that may have been warranted under Minnesota spoliation law.

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