Summary Judgment - Disparaging Comments

The application of summary judgment is intended to be a neutral process, ensuring that cases without genuine disputes of material fact are resolved efficiently. However, concerns arise when this mechanism is misused, potentially leading to unjust outcomes. A troubling aspect of such misuse is the presence of disparaging comments within judicial rulings, which may indicate bias and undermine the fairness of the proceedings. For instance, when a judge characterizes one party’s communications as “berating” or “angry” while describing the opposing party’s similar actions in neutral terms, it raises questions about impartiality. Such language not only reflects negatively on the party but may also influence the case’s outcome by casting their actions in an unjustly negative light. This selective portrayal can erode public trust in the judicial system and calls for a critical examination of how language and tone in judicial decisions impact the equitable administration of justice.

Throughout the orders in our case, Judge Miller addressed statements and actions by Defendants in positive or neutral terms but minimized or editorialized actions by Plaintiffs. For example, in his summary judgment order, Judge Miller used the following statements to describe Defendants’ actions:

• “Sean sent an email…”
• “Sean merely sent three letters to [Marie’s estranged father]…”
• “…Sean’s statement is merely a non-actionable gloss…”
• “Renee sent an email…”

(See Doc. 429.)

However, in contrast, Judge Miller used the following disparaging statements to describe Plaintiffs or their actions:

• “Craig sent a berating email…”
• “Craig sent additional angry emails…”
• “Craig sent another lengthy missive…”
• “…[Craig] sent an accusatory letter to Lisa.”
• “…Craig replied to the group with further protestations in response to his mother’s message.”
• “Thus, Craig’s conduct toward Renee would be considered “domestic abuse,” even under the strict legal definition of that term that was in effect at the time of the publications at issue in this case.”
• But the law will not go so far as to allow a person to use an assertion of fragility to enforce a heckler’s veto. To go that far would practically be to transform the objective inquiry contemplated by the Restatement into a question of what the Plaintiff subjectively finds to be outrageous.
• “Plaintiffs’ emails to Sean informed him that Marie was especially sensitive, particularly on the subject of her Father. But they did not inform Sean that contact with [Marie’s estranged father] would be perceived as having some sort of magical power of [sic] Marie, completely divorced from rational processes.”
• “Thus, Plaintiffs’ argument is essentially that Sean acted outrageously because he knew that Marie would be (unreasonably) outraged.”

(See Doc. 429.) (emphasis in original)

To determine whether these types of comments were typical, Plaintiffs reviewed Judge Miller’s summary judgment orders from June 1, 2018 through December 31, 2023 using Minnesota Court Records Online (MCRO). Plaintiffs found 35 civil cases during this period which were similar to Plaintiffs’ case in that claims were decided at summary judgment. Plaintiffs then analyzed each summary judgment order to determine how often Judge Miller made disparaging comments about the various parties. The results of this analysis are shown below:

Several of these cases were highly contentious, and Judge Miller recited much factual information about what each party said and did in his orders. However, Judge Miller did not make any disparaging comments about any of the parties or their actions in any of his summary judgment orders in these cases, with one exception – the summary judgment order in Plaintiffs’ case.

Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence to analyze Judge Miller’s summary judgment order to determine whether his comments about Plaintiffs were unusual. The specific question asked was:

Analyze the attached summary judgment order. Were the comments made about Plaintiffs Craig and Marie Stevenson unusual in any way?