Stevenson: March 25, 2022 Medical-Examination Hearing (Doc. 234)

Accessible document transcript

===== PDF PAGE 1 =====
   
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
STATE OF MINNESOTA  DISTRICT COURT 
  
COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
Craig Stevenson, Marie Stevenson,  
 Plaintiffs, File No. 56-CV-20-2928 
vs. Transcript of Proceedings 
Sean Stevenson, Renee Stevenson, 
Lisa Stevenson-Allen, Ashley Anderson,  
   
 Defendants. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
MOTION 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
The above -entitled matter came before the 
Honorable Kevin M. Miller, Judge of District Court, at the Otter 
Tail County Courthouse, via Zoom technology, Fergus Falls , 
Minnesota, on March 25, 2022.  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
APPEARANCES 
For the Plaintiffs:  Cassandra Wolfgram  
   14985 Glazier Ave, Suite 525  
   Apple Valley, MN 55124 
 
For the Defendants: Ross Tentinger 
Ashley Anderson and  14665 Galaxie Ave, Suite 140 
Lisa Stevenson-Allen Apple Valley, MN 55124  
 
For Defendants:  Stephen Couillard 
Renee Stevenson and France Place 
Sean Stevenson  3601 Minnesota Dr, Suite 450 
   Minneapolis, MN 55435 
Dana Eifert 
Official Court Reporter 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 2 =====
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
(Proceedings commenced.) 
   THE COURT:  All right.  I think everybody is 
connected, so at this time I am going to call 
Craig Stevenson, Marie Stevenson versus Sean Stevenson, 
et al; 56-CV-20-2928. 
  I have Ms. Wolfgram on behalf of the plaintiffs, and 
I have Mr. Tentinger and Mr. -- is it -- how do you say 
your last name, sir? 
   MR. COUILLARD:  Couillard. 
   THE COURT:  Couillard.  I was going to say that 
and then I wasn’t sure.   
  All right.  So, we’re here on motions here today and 
Mr. Couillard this is your motion.  I can inform 
everybody I’ve read every document and the motion and all 
the exhibits prior to today’s hearing. So, Mr. Couillard, 
you may proceed. 
   MR. COUILLARD:  Thank you, Your Honor.  Because 
you’ve read everything, I’ll try to keep it pretty brief.  
Now, as you know our first motion is to compel an IME of 
Marie Stevenson, specifically, a psych exam.  And as you 
know Rule 35 allows upon a good showing -- a showing of 
good cause the Court to specify -- 
   (Loud noises coming from audio.) 
   MR. COUILLARD:  -- Sorry if you guys can hear 
this.  There’s construction directly above me in our 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 3 =====
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
office.  
   THE COURT:  Perfect.  The world of Zoom.   
   MR. COUILLARD:  Yeah.  On a showing of good 
cause, the Court can specify the time, place, manner, 
conditions, and scope of a physical or mental 
examination.  And obviously, there’s no dispute here 
amongst the parties that defendants are entitled to 
examine Marie.  It’s just a question of the conditions or 
the setting.  And the most important condition to 
defendants in this matter is that the exam be conducted 
in person.  And obviously, it’s laid out in briefs, but 
the primary reasons for that are just, first of all for 
the effectiveness and the reliability of the exam.  As is 
noted in the Minnesota Federal case that was cited, 
Tomlin, an unimpeded one-on-one exchange is necessary for 
a truly reliable psychological exam.  And as is being 
made clear by this hearing sometimes remote hearings are 
just not an adequate substitute for in-person 
communication.  Whether that’s because of, you know, 
nonverbals that are hard to pick up or a delayed computer 
screen.  It’s just quite simply not the same.  It doesn’t 
(inaudible) picture of really the communication.  
  We did previously request that Craig Stevenson not 
be present, and it seems like he’s agreed to that 
condition.  However, there’s still no -- there’s still no 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 4 =====
4 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
guarantee of outside distractions or disruptions.  
Whether that’s from something in the room that Marie is 
using or on her computer, or noise in the house, and so 
on.  So, truly the only way that adequate conditions can 
be guaranteed for this exam would be that it is in person 
rather than done remotely.  
  Plaintiffs do mention a survey about telehealth and 
about how many practitioners will continue it ever after 
the pandemic.  However, within that survey, they don’t 
specify the types of services that they are plans to be 
offered remotely.  And I would venture to guess that 
psychological examines are not one of them.   
  In part because the technology has been around for 
at least a decade.  Whether that was via Skype, or 
FaceTime, or other methods to conduct these exams 
remotely but it was pre-covid doing these exams remotely 
was simply unheard of.  And doing them remotely during 
the pandemic was not ever considered to be an ideal 
substitute but merely one out of pure necessity.  So, we 
would ask that it be in person.  
  The next condition would be the recording of the 
examination.  And again, I would cite to the Tomlin case 
mentioning that the presence of a third person, 
physically or by tape recording is inimical to the 
conduct of a valid psychiatric examination.  Quite simply 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 5 =====
5 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
even if there’s no third person, just the fact that a 
tape recorder is there is enough to potentially influence 
the conduct of a person, knows they’re being recorded.  
They very well might be less candid than if they would 
otherwise be, knowing that someone might listen back to 
their answers in the future.  And then I cited to an Ohio 
case that I thought was quite relevant based on the 
various reasons why one might order the recording of an 
examination which none of those are present here, in that 
there’s no evidence that Marie is likely to say or do 
things she didn’t intend that might be prejudicial to the 
case.  There’s no evidence that Dr. Dossa has misused a 
psych exam to the detriment of the examinee, and there’s 
also no evidence of any factual disputes within any of 
Dr. Dossa’s previous exams.  
  Plaintiffs note that some -- that one of their 
experts or maybe multiple, they choose to record their 
examinations.  But Dr. Dossa, being the only one who’s 
willing to travel to St. Cloud, being that he does not 
allow it we believe some leeway should be allowed for his 
preference as in mentioned in the case that has been 
cited.  So, we would ask that it be in-person and not be 
recorded due to the preference of Dr. Dossa.   
  And then the location of -- the last one we 
originally -- the last condition we originally mentioned, 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 6 =====
6 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
obviously, it would be ideal if there were a qualified 
examiner in the Fergus Falls area but being that we are 
unable to locate one who’s willing to go that far.  We 
offer the best compromise that we could find, being -- 
traveling to St. Cloud.  And defendants recognize the 
potential difficulties for Marie in getting to an exam 
but as is noted in our memorandum because plaintiffs 
chose to bring this lawsuit, they must also realize that 
they must submit to reasonable discovery to allow 
defendants to defend against the claims.  And defendants 
would argue that any difficulty in attending the exam is 
outweighed by the necessity to allow defendants to 
conduct reasonable discovery and that being an in-person 
psychiatric exam.   
  In defendant -- or sorry, plaintiff’s responsive 
memorandum they request that the test conducted be 
limited to those conducted by their own experts.  And as 
is noted in our reply, this request isn’t supported by 
any authority as to why it should (indiscernible).  And 
we would ask that any tests deemed appropriate and 
relevant by our examiner be allowed to be conducted, with 
the note that we would be willing to give the -- that 
information to plaintiffs once we are made aware of what 
tests are to be conducted so they can know ahead of time.   
  And the second big piece of our motion was in regard 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 7 =====
7 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
to plaintiff expert disclosures.  And admittedly, the 
exclusion of expert witnesses is a pretty extreme remedy, 
however, our request is based solely off the text of the 
Rules of Procedure and the Court’s scheduling order in 
that the scheduling order called for plaintiff’s expert 
disclosure deadline, being January 28th and Rule 26 
clearly explaining that with expert disclosure for any 
witness who’s retained to provide expert testimony, if 
that narrative report is required as any experienced 
civil litigator should know.  However, when it came time 
to make the disclosures, plaintiffs opted, or -- out of 
-- they claim that the reports were not finished, so the 
reports were not included with their disclosures.  
However, this is not a substantial justification for not 
including them.  As, you know, they had plenty of time 
prior to that date to ensure that the reports would be 
completed in a timely manner.   
  And I didn’t mention Rule 37.03.0 -- 37.03 subpart 
a, which explains that if a party fails to provide 
information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26 
the party is not allowed to use that information or 
witness to supply evidence on a motion, or at a hearing, 
or at trial unless the failure was substantially 
justified or is harmless.  And as I mentioned, there 
wasn’t a substantial justification offered by the 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 8 =====
8 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
plaintiffs and it wasn’t a harmless oversight in that 
defendants did have to conduct their examination or their 
deposition of Marie without having plaintiff’s expert 
report in front of them and clearly, this would have 
changed the line of questioning and allow for, you know, 
additional discovery that we otherwise now aren’t able to 
conduct.  
  The alternative that we ask for originally was an 
order to compel the productions of these reports as well 
as attorneys’ fees.  And obviously, since the reports 
have since been produced, this order to compel isn’t 
necessary but we still would request attorneys’ fees for 
having to bring this motion as the reports were not 
produced until after the motion was filed.  I think 
that’s all I have so.  Thank you. 
   THE COURT:  All right.  And you’d agree, 
exclusion is pretty draconian given in particularly in a 
case where I still haven’t been able to give you folks, 
unfortunately, a trial date because we’re still working 
through our COVID world a little bit.  Would you think 
that there might be some other remedies that could take 
care of the concerns?  Be able to address them short of 
excluding?   
   MR. COUILLARD:  Potentially, Your Honor.  I 
would think that if perhaps being allowed to just briefly 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 9 =====
9 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
at least re-depose Mrs. Stevenson since we now do have 
those reports.  And then just ensuring that any trial 
date does allow the proper amount of time which, I don’t 
imagine should be an issue being that we haven’t set one 
yet.  
   THE COURT:  Yeah, and still as I sit here 
today, I’m not quite there.  We’re closing to figuring 
out where our calendars are and dealing with some speedy 
trial things and those types of things that backed up on 
us cause everybody probably doesn’t know, for Otter Tail 
County we shut down again for the month of February 
because our COVID positives were somewhere around thirty 
percent and we didn’t, quite honestly, didn’t have the 
staffing to be able to conduct jury trials for that time.  
So, once again we got pushed a little bit back but we’re 
seeing the light.  So, hopefully, I’ll be able to get 
some guidance from our district as to when I can start 
doing that cause right now, we can only schedule one jury 
trial at a time in our county.  And obviously, the rule 
from the Chief Justice right now says no civil trial is 
to disrupt any major criminal.  Well, we all have, I 
mean, all of us here judges, I think we have twenty-plus 
trials that are over a year old.  So, it’s in the red 
zone and that’s probably more information than you needed 
but, I’m hoping to find out soon.  We have a bench 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 10 =====
10 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
meeting at the beginning of May and I’m hoping to get 
some guidance from someone that has authority to give me 
that guidance to update on that.   
   MR. COUILLARD:  Okay. 
   MR. TENTINGER:  Your Honor, if I -- could I 
expand on one point that my co-counsel made just real 
quickly? 
   THE COURT:  Sure.   
   MR. TENTINGER:  When it comes to re-deposing 
Marie Stevenson, there aren’t any medical records to 
support her claim.  It’d only be expert testimony or the 
expert record reports that they provided now after this 
motion.  So, we went into that deposition completely 
blind as to what medical conditions she has and what 
she’s claiming she has.  And there’s absolutely no 
medical records.  She never went to the doctor for any of 
that stuff.  So, therefore, I mean, at the very least 
we’d like the opportunity to be -- to potentially re-
depose her after finding out what exactly it is she’s 
claiming.  In the complaint, it’s about a two-page list 
about every injury imaginable and it’s hard to get into 
that without any records or any other substance behind it 
until we actually her reports.  So, at the least, we 
would like an opportunity to re-depose her if it be 
deemed necessary.  
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 11 =====
11 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
   THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you for that.   
  Ms. -- anything further Mr. Tentinger and then -- on 
any of these and then I’m going to turn to Ms. Wolfgram. 
   MR. TENTINGER:  No, Your Honor.  Thank you. 
   THE COURT:  All right.  Ms. Wolfgram.  
   MS. WOLFGRAM:  Thank you, Your Honor.  Your 
Honor, I’m going to change my order just slightly because 
I want to respond first to the request to re-depose 
Marie.   
  You have seen the exhibits that were filed in this 
case, and we made sure that we included all the 
communications, so you would have a full story on this.  
Pursuant to those communications in the January 12th 
telephone conference, Marie’s deposition was scheduled 
for either February 24th or February 25th.  We were doing 
Marie and Craig’s back-to-back.  That was followed up on 
January 14th in defendant’s exhibit 3, which shows that we 
-- it was confirmed.  Her deposition was going to be the 
24th or 25th with Craig’s on the other day.   
  In the meantime, we get the -- we send out our 
expert disclosures on January 28th.  You can see from the 
responses to that that there was no concern about the 
deposition.  Ms. Hansen just said, we did not actually 
get any disclosure and I will respond to that at the end.  
But we explained again on February 4th that we were 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 12 =====
12 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
waiting for the reports.  Now, Mr. Tentinger, Ms. Hansen, 
none of the defense counsel ever requested a continuance 
of Ms. Stevenson’s deposition. 
  Now, Your Honor, I want to make it clear that had 
they requested that, we would have done it.  But they 
have now manufactured a prejudice that is of their own 
-- own cause at this point.  They had that option and 
didn’t do it.    
  Now, Your Honor, I’m going to go back to the 
beginning I just wanted to get that out of the way first.  
Your Honor, one of our biggest problems that we have with 
these motions is that we have tried to compromise with 
the defendants.  We have made offers to them.  We suggest 
a zoom hearing.  And what happens is we make the 
compromises, and they say, no.  We’re going to change our 
reasoning as to why we will not work with you.  So, just 
going, for example, through the reply brief that 
Mr. Couillard filed.  This was the first time that we 
were informed that the most important thing was to have 
an in-person evaluation.  Throughout the communications 
that you have, the emails, Ms. Hansen stated that their 
concern was that Craig could be influencing her.  
Influencing Marie.  Because of that concern they did not 
like the idea of having it by Zoom.  They didn’t want him 
present.  And this is stated in exhibit B, the January 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 13 =====
13 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
13th email.  And we said he wouldn’t be present.  We said 
that the next day.  Yet still, they canceled the IME, and 
then on January 27th, this is exhibit D, she state -- 
Ms. Hansen stated a Zoom examination is not realistic.  
Marie must be seen in person to assure she’s not being 
influenced in any way.  Again, there were no concerns 
about needing face-to-face communication to get a 
holistic picture of the examinee’s mental and 
psychological health.  This was manufactured because of 
the fact that we said, he would not be there.  She agreed 
he would not be there.  We would put in all of these 
safeguards to make sure that there would not be any 
conditions or concerns about any influence.  Yet because 
of the fact that we did that, they changed the reasoning 
to wanting an in-person examination.   
  Now, as you know, we have had her examined twice,  
both by video conference.  And we provided affidavits 
from our experts that said that they do these by video 
conference regularly.  Defendants haven’t provided any 
affidavits.  Until the reply memorandum was filed, the 
only expert’s name we had been given from defendants was 
Dr. O’Neill.  All we had was an email from Ms. Hansen 
saying that he does not do video conference evaluations.  
Nothing else.  We don’t have an affidavit from him.  
Nothing.  We don’t have an affidavit from Dr. Dossa that 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 14 =====
14 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
he doesn’t do evaluations by video conference either.  In 
fact, Ms. Holmberg’s affidavit that was filed with the 
reply memorandum doesn’t even say that she asked 
Dr. Dossa about doing a video conference.  It says that 
she contacted four companies in the Twin Cities and only 
two would travel.  But no questions about a video 
evaluation.  And a video evaluation would solve these 
problems by not requiring Marie and Craig to travel when 
they have significant medical conditions.   
  Your Honor, I just wanted to point out that in the 
original memo filed by the defendants, they gave you two 
articles talking about a third-party observer.  Making it 
clear to this Court that their concern was having Craig 
present.  Even though that wasn’t an issue because Craig 
had agreed not to be there.  Marie had agreed Craig could 
not be there.  Counsel had agreed Craig would not be 
there.  But they’re manufacturing this into an effect to 
make us look like we are trying to make Craig be there 
when we had agreed not to.  But they need any basis to 
make that an in-person evaluation. 
  Now, Your Honor, the next thing that Mr. Couillard 
brought up was the recording.  And don’t really want to 
spend any time on this.  I just want to point out one 
thing.  The cases he cited Tomlin and an Ohio case are 
not from Minnesota, and as you are aware federal cases 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 15 =====
15 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
are helpful if there is not a state case on point and the 
statutes are identical.  But there is a state case on 
point, and that’s Wood versus Chicago, Milwaukee, St. 
Paul, and Pacific Rail Company.  And they didn’t cite 
that because it says, the Court has the right to require 
an evaluation be recorded.   
  Your Honor, I’m going to move on to the location.  
As you noted in Ms. Holmberg’s affidavit.  Ms. Holmberg 
started with the Twin Cities, she contacted four places 
in the Twin Cities.  And two of them said that they would 
travel to St. Cloud.  There is nothing that the 
defendants have looked for any location close to the 
plaintiff’s home.  There’s nothing to suggest that 
they’ve looked in Fargo, North Dakota.  And a simple 
Google search shows that there are forensic psychologists 
in Fargo, North Dakota.  There’s nothing to suggest that 
they have searched in Alexandria or Detroit Lakes.   
  Now, as you are aware, you live in Otter Tail.  It’s 
not a big county.  But there are larger cities than -- 
that are closer than St. Cloud and Twin Cities, and those 
should be searched and looked at before you require 
somebody to travel two hours one way for a four-hour 
evaluation.  That makes it into an eight-hour day.  Now, 
Fargo, Alexandria, Detroit Lakes, all three of these are 
within one hour of the plaintiff’s location.  And that 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 16 =====
16 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
cuts down two hours of driving time, which is significant 
when you’ve got medical conditions that prohibit you from 
sitting for long periods of time and make it very 
uncomfortable.   
  And Your Honor, I would note that this would be 
consistent with the Minnesota no-fault, IME provision 
because these are the closest locations to their -- the 
plaintiff’s home.  It is -- the defendants cannot start 
with where they want to have an evaluation and slowly 
move to the plaintiff’s location.  They need to start at 
the plaintiff’s location and find what is convenient for 
them.  Not for the defendants.  And again, as you noted, 
there’s nothing from Mary Holmberg’s affidavit to suggest 
that they’ve looked anywhere other than the Twin Cities.   
  Your Honor, on the types of tests, this -- we do 
have communications that were not included in the 
exhibits because we didn’t find that they were necessary, 
but we had a communication with Ms. Hansen when she was 
looking at Dr. O’Neill.  And we asked what tests she 
would -- Dr. O’Neill would be providing.  Ms. Hansen gave 
those to us and we agreed that those were reasonable.  
Now, there’s no reason we can’t same for Dr. Dossa.  If 
they believe that they’re using Dr. Dossa, whose name was 
first given to us one week ago today, they could’ve 
gotten those same tests from him, but they haven’t.   
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 17 =====
17 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
  Now, Marie has gone through eight psychological 
tests as part of her evaluations.  These are all national 
tests that are well known.  There’s no reason why we 
can’t limit it to those eight, so we don’t have to come 
back here because that’s our concern.  Is that they will 
have a test that we didn’t agree to, that we don’t think 
is proper, especially when we’re talking about mental 
health evaluations.  And we will be back here for another 
evalu -- for another motion in front of you.   
  Your Honor, finally I’m going to move to the motion 
to exclude expert.  As you know, defendants have provided 
no case law on this.  And the reason they provided no 
case law is because the case law tells them that they 
cannot have our expert excluded.  It is straightforward.  
They first have to prove prejudiced and as I mentioned 
before they’ve manufactured this prejudice by not even 
requesting a continuance of the deposition which they 
could have done.  And two, if there are any lesser 
sanctions then that has to be first.   
  So, to begin with, they can’t meet their standard, 
and when we pointed it out in our memorandum that you 
can’t meet this.  You have not proven any prejudice.  You 
can’t prove prejudice.  And even if we were at the day of 
trial, what the court is supposed to do is continue it 
instead of excluding.  It is an abuse of discretion to 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 18 =====
18 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
exclude an expert without prejudice.  Instead, the 
response is no, we’re going to stick with the statute.  
Honestly, Your Honor, this kind of goes into a bad faith 
motion at this point.  There is no case law to support 
their motion.   
  Now, I want to just point out that we don’t 
participate up in Otter Tail much, but I’ve seen many, 
many scheduling orders and every county does them 
differently.  Most of the scheduling orders I see state 
that expert reports are due, or it’ll say identity of 
expert.  That’s not what this expert -- this is not what 
this scheduling said.  It said expert disclosures.  Now, 
that’s not very clear.  In a dispute over what that means 
is not a basis for a motion to compel and for sanctions 
or any exclusions of the expert report.   
   THE COURT:  All right.  Anything further, 
Ms. Wolfgram? 
   MS. WOLFGRAM:  No, Your Honor. 
   THE COURT:  All right.  Response Mr. Couillard? 
   MR. COUILLARD:  I don’t have anything.  I’ll 
defer to Mr. Tentinger if he does. 
   THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Tentinger. 
   MR. TENTINGER:  I have another hearing in just 
a few minutes, Your Honor, so I will be very brief.   
  The idea that these affidavits by defendants aren’t 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 19 =====
19 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
adequate to support this motion, now turn to plaintiff’s 
affidavits.  There’s no medical records or any doctor’s 
note, or any medical record even hinting that these 
alleged medical issues preventing travel.  These are 
self-induced restrictions.  I mean, the fact that they 
would have to travel to St. Cloud from their home for a 
psych evaluation in the lawsuit that they brought is not 
unreasonable.  It happens in any med-mal case, any 
personal injury case across the entire state.  Sometimes 
people have to go a couple hundred miles.  I mean, it’s 
agreed that it would be more convenient if we could 
somebody in Otter Tail but that’s not possible.   
  The idea that they have to go -- they have to travel 
to -- Craig doesn’t even have to travel.  Marie has a 
driver’s license.  She’s capable of driving herself.  She 
used to drive to Wahpeton for her own medical 
appointments.  She could drive herself to St. Cloud for 
the appointment, go back the same day, and pack one 
lunch.  And again, these restrictions are self-imposed by 
themselves.  If there was medical support for it, they 
would have submitted it.  It’s just -- I’ve just never 
seen such an opposition to having to travel here for a 
short distance for an examination like this and to me it 
just seems unreasonable.  I’ll leave it at that.   
   THE COURT:  All right.  And Ms. Wolfgram, any 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 20 =====
20 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
response? 
   MS. WOLFGRAM:  Your Honor, the medical 
conditions are well established in the record.  Both in 
the complaint and multiple affidavits.  There’s also been 
a deposition confirming all of these.  And, you know, 
Ms. Stevenson has mentioned she has not traveled the 
entire -- she has not driven while this entire case has 
been pending and to expect her to drive two hours because 
Mr. Stevenson can’t do it on a highway when she’s got 
parathesis and neuropathy is very dangerous, Your Honor. 
   THE COURT:  All right.  And I just wanted to 
note one thing, when we’re talking about the scheduling 
order.  I actually just signed the stipulated order that 
was presented by the attorneys, so if there was confusion 
about what those meant it’s -- it wasn’t an Otter Tail 
Count standard order.  I just happened to just take a 
look and it looks like counsel had signed off on that.  
So.   
  All right.  I’m going to take this under advisement.  
I’ll try to get this order out rather quickly.  
Obviously, there’s a lot of things pending that need to 
be resolved including that IME, so this case can continue 
to move forward.   
  So, I will put a rush on it.  Obviously, everybody 
knows I have 90 days.  I am not going to take that in 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 21 =====
21 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
this, but I’ve got to kind of reconcile all the documents 
that I’ve got and we’ll get an order out as soon as 
possible.   
   MR. TENTENGER:  Thank you, Your Honor. 
   THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you. 
   MS. WOLFGRAM:  Thank you, Your Honor. 
   THE COURT:  That will conclude this hearing, 
everybody have a good weekend.  
   MR. COUILLARD:  Thank you.  
(Proceedings concluded.) 
 
 
 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM

===== PDF PAGE 22 =====
22 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
 
STATE OF MINNESOTA  IN THE DISTRICT COURT 
  
COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
Craig Stevenson, Marie Stevenson,  
 Plaintiffs, File No. 56-CV-20-2928 
vs. REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 
Sean Stevenson, Renee Stevenson, 
Lisa Stevenson-Allen, Ashley Anderson 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
I, Dana Eifert, hereby certify that I am an official court 
reporter in the Seventh Judicial Dis trict of the State of 
Minnesota; that as such reporter I digitally recorded the 
proceedings in the above -entitled action; that I thereafter 
transcribed to typewriting the foregoing transcript from the 
digital recordings taken in Otter Tail  County, Minnesot a on 
March 25, 2022; and that the foregoing transcript consisting of 
21 pages, constitutes a full, true, and accurate transcription 
of said proceeding.  
Dated:  June 29, 2022 
 
/s/ Dana Eifert 
Dana Eifert 
Official Court Reporter 
c/o Otter Tail County Courthouse 
121 West Junius Avenue 
Fergus Falls, MN 56537 
Telephone:  218-560-7068 
 
 
56-CV-20-2928 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/1/2022 2:54 PM