SharonsSlideShare

SharonsFacebookStory

Here’s my Facebook movie. Find yours at https://facebook.com/lookback/ #FacebookIs10

Posted by Sharon Anderson on Monday, February 10, 2014

Steinhauser vs CitySt.Paul et al

https://www.scribd.com/doc/274740120/Steinhauser-et-alFairHousingFS-Brief-Per-Ct-Order-Ecf-8-3-15-Copy

SharonsVideo

https://www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson/videos/10202718447871762/

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

MEMORIAL BERNICE PETERSON 1983 MAYORAL CANDIDATE CITY ST.PAUL, 1,775 Vacant Where have all the people Gone?

MAY 1st, 2008-LAW DAY
MEMORIAL TO MOTHER BERNICE A. PETERSON TENANT IN COMMON OF 1058 SUMMIT AVE ST. PAUL
CITY ST. PAUL,MAYORIAL CANDIDATE 1983
AMAZING GRACE: EMAIL THIS MUSIC VIDEO



INTESTATE DECEDANT, WHO DIED AS THE FEDERAL COURT HAD A TRIAL
BERNICE PETERSON V. EEOC
JR&Shar(Homeless)1989BerniceMemoralization 001.jpg Posted by shewolfeagle on 2/21/2004, 35KB
Anderson + Advocates
OPEN LETTER TO CITY ST. PAUL, COUNTY OF RAMSEY
MARK OSWALD TAX/ELECTIONS SUPERVISOR IE: AUDITOR?
ALL AGENCIES, EMPLOYEES
MAY 15 PROPERTY TAX DAY?
TAXACTION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
Minnesota Forclosures - Google Search What happens to all these persons dislocated from their propertys
owners,tenants?

Business News

http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfox/pages/Business/Detail?contentId=
Record Foreclosure Numbers in Outstate Minnesota
When we hear about the foreclosure crisis, the inner-cities normally come to mind first as those places hit hardest. However, a new study shows that's not the case. Tom Halden reports from Elk River with some new number...>>More
46 WINNIPEG AVEFeb 4, 20075Single Family Residential
66 WINNIPEG AVEFeb 4, 20085Single Family Residential
113 WINNIPEG AVENov 3, 20075Duplex
126 WINNIPEG AVEFeb 6, 20075Single Family Residential
126 Winnipeg is a duplex, Casci's Property, I still think Casci died from Stress from the city

Monday, April 28, 2008

City St. Paul Evicting the Angrey Citizenery

MAY 15TH,2008 PROPERTY TAXES
Father Complex EVICT THE CITY OF ST.PAUL
DIVORCE THE CITY,CONTRACTS ON FRAUD
NULL AND VOID

Angry Wife Posts Second Video On YouTube

Tim Stevens




About two weeks ago, former playwright and actress
Tricia Walsh-Smith expressed her frustrations with her current divorce proceedings in (or on) a very public place -- YouTube. Ranting about her husband Philip Smith, Walsh-Smith alternated between pleas for d

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Jimmy Casci Obit He did it his way God Bless Laid to Rest 28Apr08

Go to http://myspace.com/jimcasci for Jims winking eye, further JC 20 yrs ago had dancing models the Italian Opera is a video JC would like, He always talked in Italian to make me laugh. http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
Jimmy For St Paul Mayor!
Jim Casci-Memorian 22Apr08


Jimmy For St Paul Mayor!
""Italian Immigrates Son Runs For St Paul's Mayor!" "Join The Winning Team""

Male
64 years old
St Paul, Minnesota
United States



Last Login: 4/26/2008
God Bless as you signed off.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Jim Casci Death re: Stress fighting City Hall

Jim Casci True Italian-Entreprenuer

Tribute to Jim years ago employed Dancers ie: Titian (sp) currently 126 Winnipig at issue, JC had 60 propertys?
Enjoy the video Jim would like that.

Jim Casci apparantly died sitting at his desk, at Home Tues. 22Apr08 or wed morning,
Casci was missd that day at the weekly Senior Meeting at Sal, Sharon ,
Casci was very buy he notified Kathy Lantry of his Lawyer's, concerning 126 Winnipeg ownership, and 60 propertys.
Best I can do ,JC was active member of W 7th St. Salvation Army, Sr. he was the only guy with all "his ladies"
We were realestate friends as 50 yrs ago Casci had the CD on my parents home at 309 Pelham Blvd. St. Paul, 55104
Casci gave me the 60 propertys he was the fee owner on, will list after the funeral, currently he was helping Sharon at 609 Surrey, with all the vacant buildings
The Stress of fighting the City of St. Paul is heinous, repugnant to our Health,Safety,Welfare,
Casci informed the undersigned that Friends James McDonough, Judge DCoursey were True Blue,
Casci & I would talk couple times daily, primarily the cable Council meetings.
his charitable contributions via Aaron Foster and Bill "Corky" Finney?
Casci trusted Judge DeCoursey with his life 651-266-8334
Casci apparantly is to be cremated Anderson Funeral Homes on Arcade ST. - Google Search by "No Relative
Further well publized Shalom Nursing Homes Minnesota - Google Search , ownership of polluted lands 7th and Otto, criminal neglience of Jim Casci's Health ...
sharon4council.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html - 286k - Cached - Similar pages

Susan Richard Nelson Magistrate-Partner RKMC, Conflicts City St.Paul

QUESTIONS: HAS SUSAN RICHARD NELSON US MAGISTRATE
VIOLATED JUDICIAL CANONS?
WHERE IS MN AG LORI SWANSON? http://www.ag.state.mn.us/
http://www.ademocracy.blogspot.com/
http://www.sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/
Due to the Facts that Magistrate Susan R. Nelson partner
Nelson joined the Minneapolis-based law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. in 1984 and became a partner in 1988

http://www.rkmc.com/Susan_Richard_Nelson_Appointed_U_S_Magistrate_Judge.htm

Its well known the City of St. Paul has hired many law interns from RKMC, WHEN AND IF DID NELSON DISOLVE HER PARTNERSHIP IN RKMC? Nelsons




Investigators: Inflated Promises

---
Few would argue that the natural landscape of the Brainerd lakes area is breathtaking. But for many, the housing landscape in the Northern Minnesota is changing for the worse. Since January, there have been 141 foreclosures in Cass and Crow Wing counties. One former mortgage originator is accused of making lots of promises he never kept. FOX 9's Trish Van Pilsum, reporting.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
City of St. Paul, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 04-2632 (JNE/SRN)
O R D E R
Sandra Harrilal, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 05-461 (JNE/SRN)
O R D E R
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 05-1348 (JNE/SRN)
O R D E R
Matthew A. Engel, 11282 86th Avenue North, Maple Grove, MN 55369, for Plaintiffs
Gallagher, et al.; John R. Shoemaker, Shoemaker & Shoemaker, P.L.L.C., 7701 France Ave.
South, Suite 200, Edina, MN 55435, for Plaintiffs Steinhauser, et al., and Harrilal, et al.
Louise Toscano Seeba, Assistant City Attorney, 750 City Hall and Courthouse, 15 West
Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102, for Defendants
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 1 of 15
2
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on Plaintiffs’
Motion to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 157 in Civ. No. 04-2632, Doc. No.
134 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No. 128 in Civ. No. 05-1348); Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. No. 161 in Civ. No. 04-2632, Doc. No. 138 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No.
132 in Civ. No. 05-1348); and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motions (Doc. No. 167 in
Civ. No. 04-2632, Doc. No. 144 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No. 138 in Civ. No. 05-1348).
The matter has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of
Minnesota Local Rule 72.1(a). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion to
amend the pretrial schedule, denies the motion for sanctions, and denies the motion to strike.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In these three related actions, several owners of rental properties within the city of St.
Paul (“Plaintiffs”) generally allege that the City of St. Paul (“City”) and various municipal
officials (“Defendants”) illegally discriminated against them with respect to enforcing building
codes regarding Plaintiffs’ properties, which are allegedly occupied primarily by “protectedclass”
renters.
Plaintiffs initially moved for sanctions against Defendants on June 20, 2007, asserting
that Defendants had destroyed Truth-In-Sale-of-Housing (“TISH”) reports pursuant to a routine
document destruction policy well after litigation had commenced, destroyed all emails prior to
December 2005, failed to produce St. Paul Public Housing Agency (“PHA”) documents, and
failed to produce various other documents that Plaintiffs obtained from an anonymous source.
Some of these documents were destroyed pursuant to the City’s document retention policy
because Defendants failed to initiate a litigation hold to ensure the preservation of potentially
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 2 of 15
3
relevant documents. The City disclaimed possession of other requested documents.
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice on November 13, 2007. Although
the Court agreed that Defendants should have initiated a litigation hold when these cases were
filed, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not shown any prejudice resulting from the loss of
evidence. The Court explained that a party moving for sanctions due to the destruction of
evidence must demonstrate that the material would have contained pertinent evidence, but
Plaintiffs offered no proof in the form of testimony or other documentary evidence of the content
of the destroyed material. Additionally, Plaintiffs failed to show that Defendants had destroyed
or withheld documents and electronic information willfully or with an inauspicious motive. The
Court therefore permitted Plaintiffs to renew their motion for sanctions if and when they
discovered evidence of prejudice due to the destruction or non-production of responsive
documents. Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s order, which was affirmed by the District Court on
January 3, 2008.
Since the Court’s order, the parties have engaged in extensive discovery. Plaintiffs
served additional discovery requests on Defendants, and Defendants responded. Defendants also
conducted additional searches for documents and electronic information. Defendants’ counsel
arranged a meeting with Plaintiffs’ counsel and a PHA representative, and counsel for Plaintiffs
and Defendants met and conferred regarding PHA-related documents and a protective order.
Because the City did not have the technical ability to restore emails from disaster recovery tapes,
Defendants retained a data recovery firm, Kroll OnTrack (“Kroll”), to recover the emails, which
were then produced to Plaintiffs. When Plaintiffs complained that the emails were not
electronically searchable, Defendants showed them how to search the electronic emails.
Defendants also provided a list of TISH reports and included the evaluators’ names, addresses,
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 3 of 15
4
and phone numbers, so that Plaintiffs could obtain any reports not retained by Defendants from
the evaluators personally.
Despite these additional measures, Plaintiffs remain unsatisfied with Defendants’
discovery production and practices and have renewed their motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs have
also moved to amend the pretrial schedule to allow them to file supplemental expert reports
related to the additional discovery. Defendants ask the Court to strike both of Plaintiffs’ motions
on procedural grounds.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Defendants’ Motion to Strike
Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the pretrial schedule because
Plaintiffs did not file a memorandum of law in conjunction with the motion, which was filed on
February 11, 2008. Plaintiffs ultimately filed their supporting memorandum on March 31, 2008,
fourteen days before the hearing. Defendants also move to strike Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for
sanctions because Plaintiffs did not file a supporting memorandum, either timely or untimely.
The Court denies the motion to strike, finding it preferable to resolve Plaintiffs’ motions
on the merits. Plaintiffs are advised, however, that when filing a renewed motion, the proper
practice is to file a new memorandum of law. This is especially true in the situation at present
where much has developed since the original motion, as evidenced by Plaintiffs’ four affidavits
totaling more than a hundred pages and by the hundreds of pages of additional exhibits.
B. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Pretrial Schedule
Plaintiffs move to amend the pretrial schedule to permit them to supplement the opinion
of their liability expert, Don Hedquist, on the basis of having received discovery relevant to his
opinion after the deadline for submission of expert reports in 2006. The Court grants the motion.
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 4 of 15
5
Substantial discovery has taken place since the deadline for submission of expert reports, which
constitutes good cause for amending the pretrial schedule.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are allowed until June 1, 2008, to file supplemental expert reports.
Defendants are allowed until July 1, 2008, to supplement their expert reports. The parties are
cautioned that any supplementation must pertain to discovery occurring after August 2007.
Dispositive motions must be served, filed, and scheduled by August 1, 2008. This case will be
considered ready for trial on January 2, 2009.
C. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Sanctions
Plaintiffs seek myriad sanctions, including the entry of judgment against Defendants,
“pursuant to the Court’s inherent power and pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” (Pls.’ Joint Renewed Mot. Sanctions at 1.) Plaintiffs base their motion on four
alleged discovery deficiencies: (1) Defendants’ non-disclosure of documents related to the PHA
since the Court’s order of November 13, 2007; (2) the continuing non-disclosure of TISH
reports; (3) Defendants’ non-disclosure of various documents that Plaintiff obtained from an
anonymous source; and (4) Defendants’ failure to disclose the deletion of emails and electronic
information related to Andy Dawkins, Susan Kimberly, and other City employees.
Although the Court denied Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions,
Plaintiffs’ failure to submit a memorandum of law in support of their renewed motion bears
further comment. The renewed motion is comprehensive and complex, and the Court has parsed
through hundreds of pages of affidavits and exhibits essentially unguided by any argument.
When a party seeks such drastic sanctions as Plaintiffs seek here, that party should present solid
and thorough arguments in support. Although Plaintiffs have sporadically alluded to their
memorandum in support of their first motion, this memorandum does not address any of the
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 5 of 15
6
events occurring since the Court’s order of November 13, 2007, and is therefore of little use.
“The power of the court to impose sanctions for discovery arises from two distinct
authorities.” E*Trade Sec. LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, 230 F.R.D. 582, 586 (D. Minn. 2005). If
a party fails to comply with a court order or fails to serve responses to discovery requests, the
court may sanction the party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b), (d). A court may also sanction a party based on its inherent power “to fashion an
appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Stevenson v. Union Pac.
R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739, 745 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32,
44-45 (1991)).
Sanctions for improper document destruction may not be imposed until “the moving
party can demonstrate that they have suffered prejudice as a result of the spoliation.” E*Trade
Sec. LLC, 230 F.R.D. at 592. Accord Stevenson, 354 F.3d at 748 (“There must be a finding of
prejudice to the opposing party before imposing a sanction for destruction of evidence.”); Keefer
v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 238 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2000) (stating that showing of
prejudice is required for sanction of dismissal). To establish prejudice, a movant must generally
be able to show the contents of the documents at issue, that is, the substance of the evidence to
which they were improperly denied access. See LEXIS-NEXIS v. Beer, 41 F. Supp. 2d 950, 955
(D. Minn. 1999) (noting that a movant must show that destroyed material “would have contained
evidence pertinent to the present litigation”). As one court has ruled, the movant “must establish
a reasonable possibility, based on concrete evidence rather than a fertile imagination, that access
to the [destroyed material] would have produced evidence favorable to his cause.” Gates Rubber
Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., 167 F.R.D. 90, 104 (D. Colo. 1996), quoted in LEXIS-NEXIS, 41 F.
Supp. 2d at 955. Moreover, the destroyed evidence must be “substantially different in character
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 6 of 15
7
from that of the preserved information.” LEXIS-NEXIS, 41 F. Supp. 2d at 955 (refusing to
“presume that the overwritten computer data . . . contained information any more sensitive, or
evidence any more damning, that what [movant] expected to find in the first place”). In some
situations, the nature of the documents themselves coupled with the extent and circumstances of
their destruction might support an inference of prejudice. See E*Trade, 230 F.R.D. at 592
(noting that “the substantial and complete nature of the destruction of the evidence contained in
the recorded telephone conversations and hard drives . . . . justifies a finding of prejudice”); see
also Stevenson, 354 F.3d at 748 (concluding that finding of prejudice is warranted “by the nature
of the evidence destroyed . . . the very fact that it is the only recording of conversations . . .
contemporaneous with the accident”).
Additionally, “[a] spoliation-of-evidence sanction requires ‘a finding of intentional
destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth.’” Greyhound Lines v. Wade, 485 F.3d
1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Stevenson, 354 F.3d at 746). Because direct evidence of
intent is rare, “a district court has substantial leeway to determine intent through consideration of
circumstantial evidence, witness credibility, motives of the witnesses in a particular case, and
other factors.” Morris v. Union Pac. R.R., 373 F.3d 896, 902 (8th Cir. 2004), quoted in
Greyhound Lines, 485 F.3d at 1035.
1. Documents Related to the PHA
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to produce documents concerning the City’s
relationship with the PHA such as cooperative agreements, police service agreements, and
documents related to PHA rental properties. Although Plaintiffs concede they received this
information from Defendants and the PHA itself in January and February 2008, they
nevertheless claim to have been prejudiced because they did not receive the information until
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 7 of 15
8
shortly before the dispositive motion deadline. The Court acknowledges that Defendants may
have been slightly prejudiced by the timing of the disclosure, but any such prejudice has been
remedied by the postponement of the summary judgment hearing and the extension of the
remaining pretrial deadlines.
Plaintiffs cite several instances in which they located responsive, PHA-related documents
on Defendants’ website and from other sources. While it is true that Defendants did not produce
the documents, Plaintiffs concede that they now have the materials. Plaintiffs have not shown
any remaining prejudice caused by the delay in receiving this information, nor have they shown
any intent on the part of Defendants to withhold or destroy these documents.
Plaintiffs next claim that Defendants failed to produce several documents attached to
contracts for supplemental police services. Plaintiffs’ counsel concedes, however, that “[t]he
budget narrative and PHA dwelling leases were attached to each contract.” (Shoemaker Aff.
¶ 32.) For the 2006 contract for supplemental police services, Plaintiffs fault Defendants for
failing to provide documents referenced in the contract such as quarterly progress reports, calls
for service reports, public incident reports, arrest reports, and warrant applications. During a
meet-and-confer on this issue, Defendants’ counsel agreed to “triple and quadruple check” for
such documents. (Shoemaker Aff. Ex. 22.) This statement indicates that Defendants searched
for such documents several times and were attempting to comply with Plaintiffs’ demands. The
record also verifies Defendants’ claim that they were “unable” to provide all of the PHA-related
documents sought by Plaintiffs because some of the records were no longer in Defendants’
possession. (Id. Ex. 1.)
Utterly absent from Plaintiffs’ affidavits and exhibits is a showing that they were
prejudiced by the non-disclosure of PHA-related documents. Rather, counsel worked together to
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 8 of 15
9
obtain the documents from an alternative source, the PHA itself. At Defendants’ counsel’s
initiative, counsel for all parties contacted the PHA in December 2007 regarding the production
of documents that Defendants were unable to produce. Plaintiffs subsequently served a
subpoena on the PHA on January 14, 2008, and the PHA produced responsive documents in
February and March 2008. Although Plaintiffs characterize Defendants’ inability to produce the
PHA-related documents as intentional, the Court is satisfied that Defendants did not have certain
documents and produced what they had. It is not reasonable to infer that Defendants must have
been withholding documents merely because Plaintiffs were able to obtain those documents from
the PHA.
On several occasions in early 2008, Plaintiffs identified additional, specific documents
related to the PHA and asked Defendants to produce them. Defendants almost invariably
responded or produced the documents within days of the requests. For example, in January
2008, Plaintiffs asked for documents supporting City Council minutes, and one day after the
parties held a meet-and-confer, Defendants produced the documents. Defendants also provided
various police reports referred to in the supplemental police services contracts in February 2008
after Plaintiffs specifically requested those documents.
To conclude, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they suffered prejudice from
spoliation or the non-disclosure of PHA-related documents. Plaintiffs also have not shown that
Defendants intentionally destroyed documents in an attempt to suppress the truth.
2. TISH Reports
On December 6, 2007, Defendants produced a list of all TISH reports done on properties
in St. Paul between January 1, 2001 and January 31, 2003. As Defendants had previously and
repeatedly told Plaintiffs, the actual reports had been destroyed pursuant to the City’s three-year
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 9 of 15
10
document retention policy. Defendants also reminded Plaintiffs that they had not even asked for
the reports until 2007, approximately two years after they first learned of the reports, and that the
City had produced all of the reports in its possession to Plaintiffs at that time.
The list of TISH reports shows that forty-five TISH evaluators prepared reports during
the relevant time. Defendants began preparing to depose the evaluators and obtain the missing
reports. As the Court previously ordered, the City was to bear the cost of the subpoenas.
However, Defendants never subpoenaed the TISH evaluators. Such a failure to pursue discovery
is incongruent with Defendants’ claim of prejudice.
In January 2006, Plaintiffs discovered a report authored by Connie Sandberg, which
evaluated TISH reports from 2005, but which Defendants had not produced. In a letter to
Defendants’ counsel, Plaintiffs asked for all documents related to this evaluation. Defendants’
counsel replied that Ms. Sandberg did not have any responsive information and indicated she had
already explained this to Plaintiffs, but she asked Plaintiffs’ counsel to provide the relevant
emails to aid her in another search for the documents. Plaintiffs’ counsel declined to provide the
emails, however, because of his “concern” over the City’s “tactics.” (Shoemaker Aff. ¶ 66.)
Defendants nevertheless conducted another search for these particular TISH documents and
produced a number of documents to Plaintiffs in February 2008. The Court finds no malfeasance
by Defendants or prejudice to Plaintiffs with respect to the Sandberg report and related
documents. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ own conduct was less than helpful when Defendants sought
their assistance so that Defendants could provide Plaintiffs with the information they wanted.
In sum, Plaintiffs simply have not shown that the destruction of or failure to produce the
TISH reports has prejudiced them, nor have they shown that Defendants intentionally destroyed
or withheld those reports. Further, Defendants gave sufficient information to Plaintiffs to enable
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 10 of 15
11
them to obtain the missing TISH reports directly from the evaluators, but Plaintiffs did not
attempt to acquire those reports even though Defendants would have borne the cost.
3. Documents Obtained from the Anonymous Source
Plaintiffs received fifty-eight documents from an anonymous source, which they assert
were in Defendants’ possession at one time but which Defendants failed to produce. Assuming
that Defendants had the documents at some point in the past, Plaintiffs nevertheless fail to
demonstrate prejudice from the nondisclosure by Defendants.
Plaintiffs claim they were prevented from using the documents in depositions and as
grounds for additional interrogatories and document requests. Plaintiffs do not explain,
however, how they would have used the documents in depositions or how the documents would
have predicated additional discovery requests. In addition, Plaintiffs received the anonymous
source documents more than a year ago, while discovery was ongoing, yet they did not notice
any depositions or submit interrogatories or document requests relative to the documents.
Furthermore, many of the documents were in fact produced by Defendants and used in
depositions. Given the fragmented and prolonged nature of discovery in this case, it is not
surprising that such overlaps were unnoticed. Plaintiffs also contend they were prejudiced by
incurring fees and costs to document Defendants’ behavior and in bringing this motion for
sanctions. However, this argument is meritorious only if Defendants prevail on the motion for
sanctions, which they do not.
Not only have Plaintiffs failed to establish prejudice, but there is no basis to conclude that
Defendants destroyed any of the anonymous source documents or refused to produce them in an
attempt to gain an advantage in this litigation.
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 11 of 15
1 Mr. Dawkins’ last date of employment with the City was December 21, 2005.
12
4. Emails from the Accounts of Andy Dawkins, Susan Kimberly, and
Other City Employees
Plaintiffs raise several issues with respect to the production of emails. They first
complain that they initially did not receive emails from City employee Susan Kimberly’s
account. Defendants explain, as they have repeatedly explained to Plaintiffs, that Ms.
Kimberly’s entire email account was deleted on April 20, 2006, four months after she left her
employment with the City. Consequently, her emails were not on the disaster recovery tapes
restored by Kroll. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not shown that Ms. Kimberly’s emails would
have been significant or even relevant. They did not even identify Ms. Kimberly as an
individual from whom they wanted emails until June 6, 2007, more than a year after the account
was deleted. Plaintiffs did not take Ms. Kimberly’s deposition. Even if Defendants had placed a
litigation hold on emails, Ms. Kimberly’s emails would not have been included because she is
not a Defendant and was not an employee of NHPI, the Mayor’s Office, or the City Council.
With respect to City Council President Kathy Lantry’s emails, Plaintiffs received onehalf
of the emails on December 10, 2007, and the other half on January 9, 2008. Plaintiffs
question why they did not receive all the emails on the December date. The obvious answer is
that Kroll produced the emails in batches when they recovered them, and Defendants had
nothing to do with the timing of Kroll’s process. Plaintiffs are also skeptical of the small size of
Ms. Lantry’s account as compared to the accounts of other council members. They similarly
question the size of Mr. Dawkins’ email account, even though Mr. Dawkins explained that he
rarely used email as a form of communication during his employment with the City.1 Plaintiffs
urge the Court to presume nefarious conduct on the part of the City due to the small size of the
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 12 of 15
13
recovered email accounts. Such a presumption is unsupportable, however, because Plaintiffs’
position is based on nothing more than speculation.
On February 22, 2008, Defendants’ counsel provided a batch of redacted emails to
Plaintiffs. Significantly, Plaintiffs already possessed these emails in unredacted form. Plaintiffs
now accuse Defendants of delaying the production in order to interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to
timely file its motion for sanctions. It is difficult to fathom how Plaintiffs could have been
prejudiced by the production of less evidence than they already had, and the Court rejects this
argument.
Plaintiffs next complain that Defendants produced very few emails from the years
preceding 2005. Other than the reasons already discussed, Defendants offer an additional
reason: because Plaintiffs’ counsel had explicitly limited the discovery request to emails from
December 2005 onward, in a letter dated June 6, 2007.
With respect to the email issue in general, Plaintiffs allege that they “were prejudiced by
Defendants’ delayed production of emails and failure to produce emails from relevant time
periods.” (Engel Aff. ¶ 26.) To demonstrate prejudice, Plaintiffs cite passages from other emails
that were produced and repeatedly assert “that many more emails of this character would have
been available to Plaintiffs for their claims.” (Engel Aff. ¶ 29(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i),
(j)(iv), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (s), (t), (u).) This recitation of evidence and conclusory
assertion constitute no more than mere speculation that the destroyed or withheld material would
have contained evidence favorable to Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not shown
that the destroyed or withheld evidence was significantly different from the information
Plaintiffs already possess. Finally, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Defendants
intentionally destroyed or withheld documents in an attempt to suppress the truth.
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 13 of 15
14
5. Conclusion
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate
prejudice resulting from destroyed or non-disclosed documents. It is of no small significance
that Plaintiffs have now received, if not from Defendants than from some other source, nearly all
of the documents and information they requested. Plaintiffs have offered only speculation as to
what the unavailable documents might have contained, and Plaintiffs have failed to show that
Defendants destroyed or withheld evidence to gain an advantage in litigation.
There is no question that Defendants’ discovery production in these cases was far from
ideal. Clearly, Defendants should have put a litigation hold in place. However, there is no cause
to punish Defendants or deter them from like conduct in the future. Any harm to Plaintiffs has
been adequately remedied by the actual production of information, the postponement of the
summary judgment hearing, and the extension of time to file supplemental expert reports.
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ renewed motion for sanctions.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 157 in Civ.
No. 04-2632, Doc. No. 134 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No. 128 in Civ. No. 05-
1348) is GRANTED as follows:
a. Plaintiffs shall serve their supplemental expert reports by June 1, 2008;
b. Defendants shall serve their supplemental expert reports by July 1, 2008;
c. Dispositive motions shall be served, filed, and scheduled by August 1,
2008; and
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 220 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 14 of 15
15
d. This case shall be ready for trial on January 2, 2009.
2. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 161 in Civ. No. 04-2632,
Doc. No. 138 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No. 132 in Civ. No. 05-1348) is
DENIED.
3. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motions (Doc. No. 167 in Civ. No. 04-
2632, Doc. No. 144 in Civ. No. 05-461, and Doc. No. 138 in Civ. No. 05-1348) is
DENIED.
Dated: April 23, 2008
s/ Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States Magistrate Judge

11:36 PM

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRYCongratulations Hillary "no quittin Clinton"


This Story
Apology if in duplicate Video's are worth watching
Subject:EXPOSEOBAMA.COM-Barb Winn Murders-Congratulations Hillary US President
Date:4/23/2008 10:24:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From:mailto:Sharon4AndersonSharon4Anderson
Click here: EXPOSEOBAMA.COM Please watch these's video concerning Chicago Murders
Obama has been pushing for a law to be passed called the Mothers Act. in the short it is simply another push for mental health services and mass medicating of the people of ths nation. ( Please visit http://www.chaada.org/ for more info
23Apr08 TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA,ALL AGENCIES,TOWNSHIPS
MUNICIPALITYS,
CHICAGO MURDERS, TRIGGER'S OBAMA'S SINCERITY
Further the Cold Case involving St. Paul Police Bill "corky" Finney and
Barb Winn Murder - Google Search John Harrington both Afro-American, while the White
Sheriff Bob Fletcher reopens this cold case:
THEREFORE THIS WHITE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, WHO ADMIRES HILLARY, MUST INTERJECT THE REVERSE RACEISM CARD AGAINST WHITE http://www.billdahn.com/ Native American, http://www.sharonanderson.org/ Senior-Gypsy-Swede,CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE who have been beaten, jailed,rebuffed by thef Citys Lawyer's and specifically Human Rights director Tryone Terrill, an Obama Supporter?
We call for you the public to make important decisions: When the Popular Vote for US President in November 2008
Similar Videos
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mn-aaron-foster-pal-of-ex-chief-finney-andbarbaras-murder/2702238102?icid=

[MN] Aaron Foster, pal of ex Chief Finney, &Barbara's murder

02:16
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mn-aaron-foster-charged-for-1981-murder-of-barbara-winn/459531131?icid=
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mn-sppds-aaron-foster-murder-evidence-is-missing/3153442179?icid=
FURTHER MINNESOTA-MURDERS http://minnesota-murders.blogspot.com/
This makes me think St. Paul City HR Tryone Terrillis lax on the
Aaron Foster- Barb Winn Murder
WHO DO WE TRUST??
Go Hillary You kept a marriage contract together thro adversity
Tough Love Lady You can keep our Country together
Thank You for tenancity You will be US President
Blogger: Dashboard ECF_ P165913 Pacer sa1299 /s/ Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Scarrella
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr08

Sharon4AttorneyGeneral2009 DisciplinaryBradley C. RhodesAitkinCoAttorney, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com Title Search's http://sharon4council.blogspot.com/ Candidate http://sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com/http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm

No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)
Anderson + Advocates http://taxthemax.blogspot.com/
Bio for Sharon Anderson Sharon&JR HomelessBlogBrief
SASC 1988Brief15pdf All cases published on this site are in the public domain Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Anderson + Advocates
Disclaimer: The people behind are not your lawyers, and nothing on this site should be considered legal advice. We also make no representations or promises about the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of any of the content on the site ,
Private attorney general - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia recommend that before relying on our site, you double-check your results with another legal research resource.
Sharon4Council: DLJ Management v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money Laundering Sharon-E-Dem-fcc

Monday, April 21, 2008

America Shed your Grace on thee:Go Hillary

21Apr08OPEN LETTER TO LESBIAN JUDGE KATHLEEN GEARIN
20 years ago today 21Apr1988, the LESBIAN JUDGE KATHLEEN GEARIN KICKED US OUT OF OUR PAID FOR HOME AT 1058 Summit, for $8 thous back taxes, which were paid, the Corruption of Mayor Scheibel, Latimer, Commissioner John Finley, "taking" our Homestead,
on our disabilitys, Silver Star Marine with PTSD,
TRIGGERING THE MURDER OF http://cpljimanderson.blogspot.com/ away,
Sharon Peterson-Chergosky-Scarrella-Anderson will never rest until this Lesbian Judge
Gearin is put in Prison for embellezment at that time of $110,000.00.
VOTE YOUR POCKET BOOKS, HILLARY CLINTON IS A TOUGH LOVE CANDIDATE FOR US PRESIDENT, PROUD THAT HILLARY CLINTON KEPT HER MARRIAGE TOGETHER.Candidate profile
A Tribute to our FSharons-Memory's lag Go Hillary Tough Love Lady

http://home.comcast.net/~nw-fla/tribute_flag_B_thompson.htm

Sharon4Anderson Welcomes you, Sharons/Sincere/Serenity Thanks for visiting

RockYou.com - photo sharing, MySpace slideshows, MySpace codes, MySpace music

techinally

I Am the Flag of the

Of AmericaWelcome To My Homepage I am the flag of the United

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

HRA-TCHABITAT HUMANITY-Wed 16Apr08

City St. Paul's tax toilet http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/

Wed 16Apr07

To Kathy.Lantry@ci.stpaul.mn.us St. Paul Council President , et al

janice.rettman@co.ramsey.mn.us County HRA Chair

Please take legal notice: that the undersigned and others takes Issue/Objections

to the Rezoning of 1611 Case (Bostroms),Police Cars, Central Corrior

Item 27-Grant $955 for CCC,Item 39 -Agenda 16Apr08 [ZF 08-031-543]Hearing-1611Case

QUESTIONS:

(1) Has the city of St. Paul "Economic analysis has consistently shown the clear correlation between weak rule of law and weak socio-economic performance , specifically 1,706 vacant buildings,caused
by Criminal RICO charges against DSI, formerly LIEP, NON-PROFIT ENTITIES,for greed,

City of St. Paul, MN - Official Website - Vacant Building List, the undersigned has been victimized, "takings" without Just Compensation to make Sharon Scarrella Anderson and others WHOLE.
(2) Current Federal litigation may break the bank in city of St. Paul, hopefully put
certain employees in prison where they belong for criminal conduct.
Blogger: A Democracy - Post a Comment

(3) Susan Haigh TC Habitat for Humanity mn - Google Search , Breech of Public Trust

City HRA selling land to non-profit Habitat without mortgage documents to build in place. similar to the

22 F.3d 783 Midwest Fed S&L

MEMORANDUMN

Sharon has at all times paid property taxes, must prove the "taking" of Homesteads to

inflate/created alleged tax deficiency's,

THEREFORE:

We are in a recession, numerous city GRANTS/LOANS, have put us at risk

We object to rezoning at this time of economic recession,

Sharon4Council: April 2008

Let Habitat rehab existing buildings, not build new ones.

Pursuant to Penality of Perjury

Affiant Sharon Scarrella Anderson state and alleges that Disbarred Lawyer

Chris B. Coleman has bankrupt the City of St. Paul will go down in History as the Worst Mayor of the City of St. Paul

Saint Paul Takes Bold Steps to Address Foreclosure




http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/CivicAlerts.asp?AID=
Mayor Chris Coleman and City Council members announce immediate action steps to increase the City's capacity to combat the rising rate of foreclosures. [Read on...]



JURIST - Paper Chase: UN anti-corruption head says rule of law needed to achieve UN 'millennium goals' Click here: http://stpaul.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=37&event_id=40&meta_id=38233

ECF_ P165913 Pacer sa1299 /s/ Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Scarrella
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr08

Sharon4AttorneyGeneral2009 DisciplinaryBradley C. RhodesAitkinCoAttorney, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com Title Search's http://sharon4council.blogspot.com Candidate http://sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm

No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)
Anderson + Advocates http://taxthemax.blogspot.com
Bio for Sharon Anderson Sharon&JR HomelessBlogBrief
SASC 1988Brief15pdf All cases published on this site are in the public domain Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Anderson + Advocates
Disclaimer: The people behind are not your lawyers, and nothing on this site should be considered legal advice. We also make no representations or promises about the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of any of the content on the site ,
Private attorney general - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia recommend that before relying on our site, you double-check your results with another legal research resource.
Sharon4Council: DLJ Management v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money Laundering Sharon-E-Dem-fcc
Image:WritPro06 26.pdf - Wikimedia Commons

Monday, April 14, 2008

City St. Paul Sanctions

14Apr08 TO: STATE OF MINNESOTA, ALL AGENCIES, POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS, CITYS OF AITKIN,BRAINARD,NASHWAUK,ST.PAUL,ET AL
28 RICO Fed lawsuits UNKNOW TO THE TAXPAYING PUBLIC, SPECIFICALLy, v. City St. Paul and Magner hearing today at 1:30
GOVERNMENT COVERUP EQUITY SKIMMING,SUBPRIME MORTGAGES
"TAKING" HOMESTEAD CREDITS" TO FALSELY INFLATE PROPERTY
TAXETAXACTION WITHOUT REPRESENTATIONSSharons-Memory's harons-Memory's
Gadgets powered by Google
Quote of the Day

There are no wise few. Every aristocracy that has ever existed has behaved, in all essential points, exactly like a small mob.
Gilbert Chesterton

(1874-1936)


Please visit Sharons Blogs Heritage

Blogger: DashboardImage:AffPrejGJohn-97-24.pdf - Wikimedia Commons1

SharonScarrellaAnderson

Sharon in Good Faith filed her Federal Stimulus Tax Form www.irs.gov online
Has 35 years of Standing to blow the whistle on Bank Fraud, Murder etc.
techinally seeking the indictment/arrest of Chief Judge Gregg Johnson, Kathleen
Gearin, both on SCAP Panel, Conspiracy by Court Order to Commit Murder, Embellzment of Equity Skimming,fraudulent conveyances, acting in concort with Register of Deeds for 30 years,
Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney must reopen the Grand Jury Indictments against Lou McKenna, John Finley, to resolve the countys Fraudulent Conveyances.
32 years ago: TRIGGERING Re-opening all Sharons Fed. Cases for Quiet Titles,
Midwest Fed. S&L RICO - Google SearcE Democracy Files - Sharon Anderson h Please remember when US Attorney Jerome Arnold, DFL Humphrey's Brothr in law Salamon (sp) indictments
The Patterened Enterprise, over 30 yrs now is continuining in th www.co.ramsey.mn.us
Director of Elections/Taxaction with false filings,recordings, mortgage fraud, unabated by ALL
PUBLIC OFFICIALS, including DFL State AG www.ag.mn.us Lori Swanson
ECF_ P165913 Pacer sa1299 /s/ Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Scarrella
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr08

Sharon4AttorneyGeneral2009 DisciplinaryBradley C. RhodesAitkinCoAttorney, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com Title Search's http://sharon4council.blogspot.com Candidate http://sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm

No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)
Anderson + Advocates http://taxthemax.blogspot.com
Bio for Sharon Anderson Sharon&JR HomelessBlogBrief
SASC 1988Brief15pdf All cases published on this site are in the public domain Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Anderson + Advocates
Disclaimer: The people behind are not your lawyers, and nothing on this site should be considered legal advice. We also make no representations or promises about the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of any of the content on the site ,
Private attorney general - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia recommend that before relying on our site, you double-check your results with another legal research resource.
Sharon4Council: DLJ Managment v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money Laundering Sharon-E-Dem-fcc
Image:WritPro06 26.pdf - Wikimedia Commons

Sharon4Council

VoteSharonWard2Council_AndersonAdvocate4All

VoteSharonWard2Council_AndersonAdvocate4All
SharonsSocratiesMethod TruthTrust4YOU

JURIST Paper Chase

Dayton's MN ShutDown Costs

2007 Sharon StPaul Ward(2) Election

Minnesota.com

Blog Directory for St Paul, MN

Snap Shots

Get Free Shots from Snap.com

AllMNSharon4

Sharon4Council: Empower Ethics Empathize Energize Educate:

Sharon4Council: Empower  Ethics Empathize Energize Educate: