Christopher Ivey v. MSOP et al., Case No. 12-CV-30 (D. Minn., July 30, 2019).
This case concerns numerous motions filed in United States District Court. The primary dispute between the parties concerns the plaintiff’s discovery request and motion to compel discovery of certain government data maintained by the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP).
MSOP objected to the plaintiff’s discovery request on a number of grounds, including that some of the data were classified as not public, such as nonpublic security data and private data on other MSOP clients. MSOP subsequently filed a motion for protective order.
The Court analyzed Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows discovery of relevant, nonprivileged items that are proportional to the needs of the case. In doing so, the Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the data are protected by the Data Practices Act, stating “the [Data Practices Act] does not trump the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” The Court further indicated that Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 6 is not applicable in federal court, and thus the Court does not need to address whether the standards in this subdivision are met.
However, the Court may consider the defendants’ underlying discovery and protective order arguments to determine whether discovery of the data at issue is appropriate. Defendants’ arguments relating to security concerns and identifying information on other MSOP clients have merit and the Court permitted limited discovery. The Court permitted the Plaintiff access to certain data under the supervision of MSOP staff and prohibited the plaintiff from sharing the content of the data with others. The Court also permitted the defendants to redact specific security information and identifying data on other MSOP clients.
Randolph Pentel v. Michael Shepard et al., Case No. 18-CV-1447 (D. Minn., Aug. 7, 2019).
Plaintiffs allege that a city police officer (Shepard) improperly accessed not public data about them, in alleged violations of the Data Practices Act and federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act. Plaintiffs subpoenaed audit returns from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for a three and a half year time period to evaluate how many improper searches Shepard performed, and whose data he accessed. Plaintiffs asserted these audit returns would assist them in determining whether Shepard improperly accessed the data of enough individuals to “satisfy Rule 23(a)(91)’s numerosity requirement.”
DPS objected to the subpoena on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to compel DPS to provide the audits, require the City to “determine which accesses were made by Shepard, and require the City to identify the “identit[ies] of the individuals accessed.”
The Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel on the grounds that the requested discovery was “not proportional to the needs of the case,” considering the burden to both DPS and the City. The Court also denied plaintiffs’ request to order the City to provide notifications to data subjects whose data was accessed by Shepard under Minn. Stat. § 13.055, as a request that should be included in a dispositive motion rather than a motion to compel.
Greene v. Minn. Bureau of Mediation Services, Minnesota Department of Human Services, and Minnesota Management and Budget, No. A18-1981 (Minn. Ct. App. August 12, 2019) (unpublished)
In an effort to decertify the current personal care attendant (PCA) union, Service Employees International Union Healthcare Minnesota (SEIU), respondents submitted requests to DHS and BMS, seeking the most-recent list of all PCAs compiled under Minn. Stat. § 256B.0711, subd. 4(f). DHS directed respondents to request the data from BMS, which provided a list from 2014, despite having an updated list from 2016. The data at issue included names, addresses, and telephone numbers of PCAs. (The Court concluded that the requested data identifying a PCA who cared for family members in the same home would not identify the recipients of the care.)
The Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the respondents. The Court held that BMS did not have an obligation to provide an updated list to the respondents because they did not fall into one of the two categories of groups that were entitled to receive it under PELRA. (See, Minn. Stat. § 179A.54, subd. 9.) However, the Court found that PCAs are employees of the executive branch (specifically MMB) and their data are personnel data pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.43. Therefore, DHS and MMB had an obligation to provide the data to respondents as public personnel data.
|
