Hageman v. Morrison County Sheriff's Office et al, No. 0:2019cv03019 - Document 110 (D. Minn. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 55 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Morrison County Sheriff's Office, Mark Dzieweczynski, Scott McKissock, Carrie Herman, Mike Whitlow, Tim Brummer, Jennifer Orth, Joan Mushel, Caleb Ochoa, Shannon Anderson, Andy Waltman, Ethan Wise, Morrison County, Shawn Larson, Jason Worlie without prejudice. (Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 6/30/2021.(HMA)

Download PDF
Hageman v. Morrison County Sheriff's Office et al Doc. 110 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ADAM HAGEMAN, Civil No. 19-3019 (JRT/HB) Plaintiff, v. MORRISON COUNTY; SHAWN LARSON, Morrison County Sheriff; SCOTT MCKISSOCK, Jail Administrator; TIM BRUMMER, Jail Programmer; JASON WORLIE, Sheriff’s Officer; MARK DZIEWECZYNSKI, Officer; JOAN MUSHEL, Correctional Officer; JENNIFER ORTH, Correctional Officer; MIKE WHITLOW, Correctional Officer; ANDY WALTMAN, Correctional Officer; ETHAN WISE, Correctional Officer; and SHANNON ANDERSON, Correctional Officer, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendants. Adam Hageman, OID # 251041, MCF – Lino Lakes, 7525 Fourth Avenue, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, pro se. Michael J. Ervin and Scott T. Anderson, RUPP ANDERSON SQUIRES & WALDSPURGER PA, 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendants. On April 30, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order, (Docket No. 90), granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, (Docket No. 79), and a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (Docket No. 89), recommending that Defendants’ Motion Dockets.Justia.com for Summary Judgment, (Docket No. 55), be denied without prejudice. 1 The Magistrate Judge ordered Defendants to obtain video footage given to Crow Wing County and provide it to Plaintiff in an accessible format by June 1, 2021, (Order at 10), but denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel with respect to video footage from a jail classroom because such video is outside the scope of the discovery requests, and with respect to video footage from August 21, 2019 because the video no longer exists. (Id. at 6–7.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the partial denial of his Motion to Compel. 2 (Docket No. 91.) Because the Motion to Compel is nondispositive, the Court reviews objected-to portions of the Order for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). First, Plaintiff disagrees that the video from a jail classroom is outside the discovery requests because he requested all video from all cell block areas and the classroom is located in the upper cell block area. However, Plaintiff’s Objections do not specifically contradict Defendant MacKissock’s declaration that the jail classroom and cell block are separated by 40 to 50 feet and secured doors. (Decl. Scott MacKissock ¶ 14, May 20, 2021, Docket No. 93.) The Court therefore finds that the Magistrate Judge’s decision to distinguish between a cell 1 The Magistrate Judge recommended denial without prejudice in light of the discovery that remains to be completed pursuant to the partial grant of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (See R&R at 8–9.) To allow time for Defendants to produce the video given to Crow Wing County and for Plaintiff to incorporate such video in his response to dispositive motions, the Magistrate Judge ordered an extension of time to file dispositive motions. (Order at 10.) 2 Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied without prejudice and, as such, the Court will adopt the R&R. -2- block and the jail classroom is not clearly erroneous and will deny Plaintiff’s Objections on this finding. Second, Plaintiff asserts that video from August 21, 2019 is currently stored on a cloud server and was uploaded by Defendant MacKissock. Therefore, Plaintiff argues, the video is within Defendants’ possession, custody, or control and is discoverable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a). Yet Plaintiff has produced no evidence to support his contention that the video sought is currently stored in the cloud or to contradict Defendant MacKissock’s declaration stating that there is no additional preserved video from August 21, 2019. (Decl. Scott MacKissock ¶¶ 11–12.) As such, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s denial of the Motion to Compel with respect to the August 21, 2019 video footage is not clearly erroneous and will deny Plaintiff’s Objections on this point as well. ORDER Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Objections [Docket No. 91] are OVERRULED; 2. The Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Docket No. 90] is AFFIRMED; 3. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 89] is ADOPTED; -3- 4. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 55] is DENIED without prejudice; and 5. Because Defendants’ second Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 101] was filed prematurely before adoption of the Report and Recommendation and denial of Defendants’ first Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice, Defendants shall withdraw and refile their dispositive motions. DATED: June 30, 2021 at Minneapolis, Minnesota. ____ ____ JOHN R. TUNHEIM Chief Judge United States District Court -4-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.