---
title: Judicial Contact Information Exposed—and Minnesota Courts Still Owe Answers
url: https://justice-denied.org/mn-judicial-privacy-reports-unanswered/
date: 2026-10-04T14:52:04+00:00
modified: 2026-11-03T09:53:12+00:00
lang: en_US
---

# Judicial Contact Information Exposed—and Minnesota Courts Still Owe Answers

A judge’s email address led to a statewide directory of judicial contact information. After unanswered reports to court officials, the publisher confirmed removal seven days after I contacted them.

---

*Reporting and response status as of October 3, 2026.*

![Judicial contact information security reports as of October 3, 2026: 44 days without acknowledgment from Otter Tail County Court Administration, 26 days without acknowledgment from state Judicial Branch officials, and seven days from publisher contact to confirmed source removal.](https://justice-denied.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/judicial-contact-response-delays-2026-10-03-v2.png)

*Response status as of October 3, 2026. The court security reports remained unacknowledged; Mariposa confirmed source removal seven calendar days after I contacted them.*

An email address embedded in a court order led me to a publicly downloadable statewide judicial directory. I reported the concern to court officials, then contacted the publisher when those reports went unacknowledged. The publisher confirmed removal seven days later. The court reports still await acknowledgment.

**Note:** Justice-Denied delayed publication of this article until after I had notified local and state Judicial Branch officials of the information exposure and independently confirmed that the AnyFlip copy of the judicial directory was no longer accessible. The purpose was to bring attention to the handling of the reports without directing readers to an accessible collection of judicial contact information.

## How a court order led to a statewide directory

I had a particular reason to examine the Author properties of court PDFs. Law clerk James Morrison’s name appeared in that field in more than a dozen orders in our case, including four of the most consequential orders—among them, the order that ultimately dismissed our case at summary judgment. Morrison had previously served as law clerk to Judge Mark F. Hansen, the father of defense attorney [Kirsten Hansen](https://stichlaw.com/kirsten-kit-j-hansen/). Our concern involved Morrison’s active participation in preparing the orders, without our knowledge, and the significance of that prior professional relationship.

In his [December 18, 2024 order denying our requests for recusal and vacatur](#jd-4001-source-1), [Judge Kevin M. Miller](https://justice-denied.org/judge-kevin-m-miller/) emphasized his own responsibility for the decisions: **“Plaintiffs have repeatedly implied in their arguments that Mr. Morrison, not the Court, has made decisions in this matter. … The Court has made all the decisions in this matter, as that is the Court’s province.”**

That history made the Author field worth examining when the August 14, 2026 Order and Memorandum in *Stevenson v. Stevenson* (Court File No. 56-CV-20-2928, Document 618) was filed on August 17. Before that order, I had seen only a law clerk’s name in the Author properties of the orders I had examined. This time, the field contained Judge Miller’s own Judicial Branch email address. The address was not printed in the order’s text; it was available through ordinary document properties.

Against that background, the identification struck Marie and me as an assertion of personal authorship. We were shocked to find his email address there. His official judicial biography page had never listed an email address—nor had we ever seen a judicial officer’s email address listed on a Judicial Branch biography page. The address also supplied something consequential: a precise term I could enter into Google Search.

I entered his email address, in quotation marks, into Google Search. **Google’s regular web search results showed just one document: an AnyFlip copy of the 2022 Minnesota judicial handbook.**

![Title-page excerpt identifying the 2022 Minnesota Attorney’s/Paralegal’s/Secretary’s Handbook, 45th edition.](https://justice-denied.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/anyflip-publication-excerpt.png)

*Title-page excerpt from Mariposa’s 2022 Minnesota Attorney’s/Paralegal’s/Secretary’s Handbook, 45th edition.*

Older documents can remain buried in the noise of ordinary search results. A broad search for a judge’s name or contact information may never bring a particular archived file to the reader’s attention. Here, the exact address cut through that noise. It led directly to the AnyFlip book.

The AnyFlip publication reproduced a 52-page extract from the *2022 Minnesota Attorney’s/Paralegal’s/Secretary’s Handbook*, 45th Edition, published by Mariposa Publishing. The file contained **353 distinct named judicial-officer entries in its index, 296 distinct email addresses, and 431 distinct telephone and fax numbers**. Its coverage spanned all ten Minnesota judicial districts and included federal-court contacts.

Judge Miller’s newly filed court order had supplied the search term that made this much larger collection of judicial contact information directly discoverable.

## The judicial contact information exposed

The scale of the 52-page directory deserves a closer look. It linked judicial names and professional roles with contact information across Minnesota.

The file contained:

- **353 distinct named judicial-officer entries** in its alphabetical index, with their courts or judicial districts and telephone numbers listed alongside their names. The index includes Tax Court judges, workers’ compensation judges, district court judges, Minnesota Court of Appeals judges, and even Minnesota Supreme Court justices.
- **296 distinct email addresses:** 273 in district-judge or chambers sections, 18 in Minnesota district administrative or support sections, and five in federal-court sections.
- **431 distinct telephone and fax numbers,** including numbers labeled “DIRECT,” general office lines, an automated line, and fax numbers.
- **Names and professional titles** identifying judges, chief judges, district administrators, assistant and deputy administrators, office assistants and managers, executive assistants, federal clerks, court officials, and judicial assistants.
- **Courthouse and office mailing details,** including street addresses, cities, ZIP codes, room and suite numbers, and post-office boxes.
- **All ten Minnesota judicial districts,** giving the directory statewide reach, plus federal-court contacts in the excerpt’s final section.
- **Machine-readable contact information across most of the file:** email addresses appear on 38 of the 52 pages and telephone or fax numbers on 48. Including repeated listings, the file contained 297 email entries and 822 telephone or fax entries.

\* Telephone totals include shared office and fax lines. The same person or office may appear in more than one count. These totals should not be added together to calculate the number of people listed.

The email and telephone fields were ordinary text. Two independent PDF extraction methods reproduced the same aggregate totals. Although the web presentation used email-protection links, the downloadable PDF exposed complete email address strings as extractable text.

The directory itself cautioned: **“Please do not email judges without prior permission.”**

## How the exposure could be used to target judges

Publishing Judge Miller’s own email address in a public court order made a precise judicial contact available to anyone inspecting its document properties. In this case, it also supplied the exact search term that led directly to the statewide directory. That directory linked names, official roles, court locations, email addresses, and telephone numbers in a form that could be collected automatically.

Those connections could help a malicious actor target judges and court personnel through:

- **Targeted phishing:** Personalizing deceptive messages with the recipient’s name, court, position, and location to make them appear familiar and credible.
- **Credential theft:** Directing recipients to fraudulent sign-in pages or persuading them to disclose passwords or authentication codes.
- **Impersonating judges or court personnel:** Using accurate professional details to lend credibility to requests for documents, confidential information, or changes in where communications should be sent.
- **Delivering malicious software:** Sending harmful attachments or links under the appearance of legitimate court business.
- **Password attacks:** Using email addresses as candidate account identifiers for attempts involving common passwords or credentials obtained elsewhere.
- **Deceptive telephone calls:** Combining direct telephone numbers with names and official roles to make fraudulent calls more convincing.

These risks are recognized in established cybersecurity guidance. [CISA’s phishing guidance](https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/Update%20to%20Phishing%20General%20Security%20Postcard_01.01.2024.pdf) explains how attackers impersonate trusted sources to obtain information or deliver malicious software, including targeted attacks tailored to individual victims. [MITRE documents how collecting email addresses](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1589/002/) can support phishing, further reconnaissance, and password attacks. Its recommended mitigation includes “minimizing the amount and sensitivity of data available to external parties.”

The information accessible through court accounts raises the stakes. Depending on an account’s permissions and security controls, a successful compromise could expose internal communications and nonpublic case information.

## What happened after I reported it

**[August 20:](#jd-4001-source-2)** I emailed Otter Tail County Court Administrator Trisha Mernitz about the email address in the court PDF’s metadata. I offered preserved evidence and requested referral to the appropriate security or technology personnel.

I expressly defined the purpose of the report:

> “This communication does not address the merits of any motion, seek judicial relief, or request direct communication with Judge Miller.”

I explained how the address could be used to impersonate a judge:

> “A convincing message appearing to originate from a judge could be used to solicit credentials, induce a recipient to open a malicious attachment, redirect a communication, or obtain information relating to a pending or concluded matter.”

The email ended with a straightforward request:

> “Please confirm receipt and that this notice has been routed to the appropriate personnel.”

An electronic delivery report confirmed that the message was delivered to her court address. **No acknowledgment arrived.**

**[September 7:](#jd-4001-source-3)** I escalated the matter to Jason Betz, Director of the Judicial Branch’s Information Technology Division, and Jeff Shorba, State Court Administrator. My report quantified the directory’s contents and requested a tracked review, a responsible contact, consideration of removal or access restrictions, and review of court PDF publication practices.

The report explained the significance of the larger collection:

> “The directory substantially lowers the cost of building a statewide targeting list. It links names, court roles, districts, courthouse locations, direct or chambers telephone numbers, fax numbers, and email account identifiers in a consistent format.”

It also warned of potential consequences for information entrusted to the courts:

> “Depending on the Branch's account permissions and security architecture, a successful account compromise could expose internal communications, attachments, calendars, draft material, or nonpublic case information accessible to that account.”

These were specific risks described in the notices for which I requested acknowledgment and review.

**[September 21:](#jd-4001-source-4)** Two weeks later, I still had no acknowledgment, and the directory remained available. Concerned, I decided to take action myself. I contacted the handbook’s publisher, Mariposa Publishing, directly.

**[September 28:](#jd-4001-source-4)** Seven calendar days after my message, Mariposa responded:

> “This was not a file authorized for public consumption or searching.”

The same response confirmed:

> “we have had it removed.”

I checked the former publication page and preserved a September 28 capture showing “404 Page Not Found.”

![Preserved September 28, 2026 capture of the former AnyFlip publication page displaying 404 Page Not Found after the publisher confirmed removal.](https://justice-denied.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/anyflip-removal-september-28-2026.png)

*The former AnyFlip publication page on September 28, 2026, after Mariposa confirmed removal. The page displayed “404 Page Not Found.”*

**[September 29:](#jd-4001-source-3)** In follow-up letters to court officials, I reported finding the same Judicial Branch email address in the Author properties of another order, also issued by Judge Miller. It was the September 24, 2026 Order for Judgment and Judgment in *Stephen Roy Svendsen v. Pamela Joy Minten, et al.* (Court File No. 56-CV-24-1426, Index No. 297).

That order postdated both my August 20 local notice to the Otter Tail County Court Administrator and my September 7 statewide escalation to Minnesota Judicial Branch officials. It supplied a specific reason to examine the document-production process and determine whether the practice of including a judge’s email address in the metadata properties should continue.

I asked again for acknowledgment and a disposition of the metadata concern.

As of October 3, it has been **44 days since my first notice to Otter Tail County Court Administration and 26 days since my statewide escalation**. I have received no acknowledgment, ticket number, referral notice, or explanation of the outcome for either information-security report. My September 29 request for acknowledgment and a disposition also remains unanswered.

My intervention produced a concrete, verifiable result. Mariposa confirmed that the public availability was unintended and removed the source. The publisher deserves credit for promptly addressing the report.

A statewide directory linking judicial names, roles, and direct contact details deserved prompt security assessment. The person reporting it deserved an acknowledgment.

The Judicial Branch still owes an answer about its handling of the notices.

## Confidential court records raised additional concerns

During the same period, I was reporting a separate concern involving my family’s court records. That reporting began before the judicial directory was removed and led to a different response from Court Administration.

**September 22:** My review found six public filings still available for download: Documents 113, 130, 202, 384, 432, and 444 in *Stevenson*. They included exhibits marked Confidential and material drawn from designated confidential testimony.

**[September 23:](#jd-4001-source-7)** I sent Chief Judge Michael D. Fritz of the Seventh Judicial District a request identifying those six filings and asking for administrative review of confidentiality and access.

I identified the transcript pages showing that our attorney brought the issue to the court’s attention in March 2023. I asked for review of current public access and appropriate restrictions or redactions. Justice-Denied has examined that history in [One Day in Starkebaum and Years in Stevenson](https://justice-denied.org/protective-orders-starkebaum-stevenson/).

That request also addressed extensive sensitive records, including medical and genetic information, that defendants’ attorney [Ross Tentinger](https://www.tentingerlawfirm.com/ross-n-tentinger/) uploaded to the electronic court file in 2026. Those submissions were filed Confidential and were not generally downloadable through Minnesota Court Records Online. My concerns included their submission following a protective order destruction deadline, distribution through e-service, retention, and continuing access.

I asked the Judicial Branch to preserve the access and service history, determine who could retain the records, and decide what corrective action was required.

**As of October 3, I have received no acknowledgment of my September 23 request to Chief Judge Fritz.**

## A Rule 11.05 notice was returned as “Ex-Parte Communication”

**[September 24:](#jd-4001-source-8)** Marie and I sent Court Administrator Trisha Mernitz a letter expressly invoking [Rule 11.05](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/gp/id/11/). We identified **five publicly downloadable filings—Documents 113, 130, 202, 384, and 444**—and supplied an inventory and the amended protective order from our case.

We asked Court Administration to restrict public access pending review and direct the filers to correct the filings or seek court relief. We also asked it to preserve the access history and confirm the documents’ access classifications and whether temporary restriction had been imposed.

The letter separately requested broader relief concerning 16 entries already filed Confidential, including removal from the active electronic case file and termination of further attorney or party access. We expressly asked for judicial referral or the precise procedure to follow if those remedies required a court order.

The letter also made clear:

> “This request does not seek reconsideration of the denied redesignation motion.”

**[September 28:](#jd-4001-source-9)** Court Administration returned the materials with this explanation:

> “These documents are being returned to you because of Ex-Parte Communication.”

The return memorandum said that court records showed us represented by counsel and directed filings through our attorney. Trisha Mernitz’s name appeared on the mailing cover and office letterhead. An accompanying handout explained the restrictions on private communications with a judge.

Rule 11.05 states: **“Any person may notify the court administrator at any time”** that a restricted identifier or other nonpublic information appears in a publicly accessible court record. Upon discovery of a qualifying filing violation, it directs interim restriction pending redaction or a court order.

**The response did not discuss Rule 11.05 or report an assessment of the public-access problem.** It did not report whether the five public filings had been examined, whether their public availability was proper, or whether access had been restricted. The instructions for seeking judicial relief left the handling of the separately identified public-record exposure unexplained.

The contrast was striking. Judge Miller’s own email address was available to litigants in the metadata of a public court order. Yet when we contacted Court Administration about a separate confidentiality problem, our September 24 Rule 11.05 notice was returned as “Ex-Parte Communication,” without explaining whether the reported public exposure had been assessed.

A person reporting exposed confidential material should be able to learn whether the report was assessed and what action followed. Our letter specifically requested that information. **The response did not provide it.**

## Minnesota Judicial Branch privacy concerns deserve an answer

People whose sensitive information enters a court system need a functioning route for reporting problems. They should be able to learn whether a report reached the responsible office and whether it was accepted, referred, resolved, or closed.

The Judicial Branch’s current [Cyber Security Program policy, Policy 1001](https://mncourts.gov/minnesotajudicialcouncil/policies/cyber-security), took effect January 1, 2026. It provides for protecting its systems and data, assigning safeguards according to data sensitivity, and implementing procedures to respond to security events. It places implementation responsibility with the State Court Administrator.

Those responsibilities make the unanswered questions substantial:

- Were my August 20 and September 7 reports logged and assigned for review?
- What conclusions were reached about the directory and the court PDF metadata?
- Was the recurring metadata examined, and what publication safeguards apply?
- Has my September 23 request concerning public access and confidential records been assigned for review?
- Were the five public filings identified in our September 24 Rule 11.05 notice reviewed, and what was determined about their public accessibility?
- Why did the September 28 return notice give no account of how the Rule 11.05 report was handled?
- Who is responsible for responding when someone reports a privacy or information-security concern?

An acknowledgment would not require disclosing sensitive security operations. A responsible office could confirm receipt, explain the next step, and eventually communicate a disposition.

**Forty-four days without even that basic response to the original notice is unacceptable.**

The publisher’s removal demonstrates the practical value of reporting an exposure. The unanswered metadata and directory reports, together with the unexplained handling of our Rule 11.05 notice, call for an accountable response from court administration.

Minnesotans entrust the courts with information that can affect their finances, health, families, and safety. They deserve a reporting process that produces an accountable response when concerns arise.

**How can the public have confidence that the Minnesota Judicial Branch will protect private and confidential information when it has not even acknowledged reports that its own judicial contact information was exposed?**

Silence and procedural rebuffs can discourage people from reporting the next exposure. That creates a problem for everyone whose information the courts hold. The Judicial Branch should provide clear reporting instructions, identify the responsible office, and establish standards for acknowledging reports and communicating what action followed.

**Protecting that trust requires receiving the report, assessing the concern, and telling the person who raised it what was done.**

## Sources and documentation

1. December 18, 2024 order denying recusal and vacatur in *Stevenson v. Stevenson*, Court File No. 56-CV-20-2928, Document 549, PDF page 9 (the court’s statement about decision-making and the law clerk’s role).
2. August 20, 2026 email to Otter Tail County Court Administration, “Potential information-security issue in public PDF metadata,” and the corresponding electronic delivery report.
3. *Minnesota Judicial Contact Exposure Escalation Report*, September 7, 2026, version 1.5; September 29 follow-up letters to Trisha Mernitz, Jason Betz, Jeff Shorba, and Chief Judge Michael D. Fritz.
4. September 21, 2026 email to Mariposa Publishing and the preserved email thread containing Mariposa’s September 28 response confirming unauthorized public availability and removal.
5. The retained 52-page handbook extract: PDF pages 7–14 for the 353-name index; pages 15–50 for Minnesota district contacts; pages 51–52 for federal contacts. Aggregate counts were independently reproduced. The contact directory is not republished here.
6. Preserved original exact-address Google search capture, October 3 search capture, and [September 28 AnyFlip removal capture](https://justice-denied.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/anyflip-removal-september-28-2026.png); the former publication page was also checked October 3.
7. September 23, 2026 letter to Chief Judge Fritz requesting administrative review of confidentiality and access in Court File No. 56-CV-20-2928, version 1.7, and its September 29 supplement. The correspondence identifies the underlying court records and requested review.
8. September 24, 2026 letter to Court Administrator Trisha Mernitz, “Rule 11.05 notice, statutory privacy violations, and request for immediate protection of confidential material,” version 1.4, with the amended protective order and accompanying inventories.
9. September 28, 2026 Court Administration return packet: mailing cover identifying Trisha Mernitz; return memorandum; and the accompanying ex parte communication handout.
10. [Minnesota Judicial Branch Policy 1001](https://mncourts.gov/minnesotajudicialcouncil/policies/cyber-security), sections V–VI; [Minnesota General Rule of Practice 11.05](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/rule/gp-11/); and [Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.9](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/pr/subtype/judi/id/2/). The Judicial Council lists former Policy 1000 as sunset January 1, 2026.

## Related reporting

- [One Day in Starkebaum and Years in Stevenson](https://justice-denied.org/protective-orders-starkebaum-stevenson/)
- [When the “Author” Disappears](https://justice-denied.org/when-the-author-disappears/)
- [A Protective Order Under Attack](https://justice-denied.org/a-protective-order-under-attack/)
- [Oversight Without Oversight](https://justice-denied.org/oversight-without-oversight/)
- [Judge Kevin M. Miller: Public Record and Rulings](https://justice-denied.org/judge-kevin-m-miller/)

*Disclosure: I am a party in the Stevenson litigation discussed here and editor of Justice-Denied.org. The exposed contact details are intentionally omitted.*