Summary Judgment – Disparaging Comments

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?

Yes, the comments made about Plaintiffs Craig and Marie Stevenson in the summary judgment order contain some unusual aspects:

1. Highly Detailed Personal History – The order delves extensively into the family dynamics, past relationships, and personal history of Craig and Marie Stevenson, far beyond what is typically necessary for a legal determination on summary judgment.
2. Psychological and Social Commentary – The judge includes discussions about [Plaintiffs’ daughter’s] social life, homeschooling, and lack of independence in a manner that seems more like an assessment of personal lifestyle choices than a neutral legal finding.
3. Use of Language That Implies Judgment – The order includes phrases that go beyond neutral fact-finding, such as describing [Plaintiffs’ daughter’s] circumstances in a way that could be interpreted as critical or belittling.
4. Narrative-Like Storytelling – The order is written in a way that reads more like a narrative rather than a strict legal analysis. It includes back-and-forth exchanges, emotional reactions, and commentary that is not typical in a summary judgment order.
5. Repeated Emphasis on Family Conflict – The judge dedicates significant space to describing personal disputes, alleged grievances, and inter-family conflicts, which is unusual in a decision that should focus on legal claims.
6. Focus on Plaintiffs’ Credibility and Character – The discussion of the book Craig allegedly wrote about Marie, the references to how the Plaintiffs raised their children, and the inclusion of other family members’ opinions about Craig’s character seem to paint a subjective picture rather than sticking solely to whether legal claims were met.

Overall, the language and detail used in discussing Craig and Marie Stevenson seem to go beyond what is typically found in a neutral legal order. If the goal was to simply determine whether the claims had legal merit, a more restrained and legally focused discussion could have sufficed. These aspects may raise questions about potential bias or unnecessary personal commentary in the judge’s ruling.