Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                 


Tenner Murphy, by his guardians Kay and    Civ. No. 16-2623 (DWF/BRT)      
Richard Murphy; Marrie Bottelson; Dionne                                   
Swanson; and on behalf of others similarly                                 
situated,                                                                  

              Plaintiffs,                                                 

v.                                     ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’                
                                     MOTION TO COMPEL AND                 
Emily Johnson Piper in her Capacity as  THIRD-PARTIES’ RESPONSE            
Commissioner of the Minnesota Department                                   
of Human Services,                                                         

              Defendant.                                                  


Justin H. Perl, Esq., Christen Chapman, Esq., and Steven C. Schmidt, Mid-Minnesota 
Legal Aid; Joseph W. Anthony, Esq., Peter McElligott, Esq., and Steven M. Pincus, Esq., 
Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA; and Steven Andrew Smith, Esq., and Laura A. 
Farley, Esq., Nichols Kaster, PLLP, counsel for Plaintiffs.               

Janine Wetzel Kimble, Esq., Scott H. Ikeda, Esq., Aaron Winter, Esq., and Brandon 
Boese, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, counsel for Defendant.  

Bryan D. Frantz, Esq., Anoka County Attorney’s Office, Helen R. Brosnahan, Esq., 
Dakota County Attorney’s Office, Daniel D. Kaczor, Esq., Hennepin County Attorney’s 
Office, Robert B. Roche, Esq., Ramsey County Attorney’s Office, and Benjamin M. 
Stromberg, Esq., St. Louis County Attorney’s Office, counsel for Third Parties. 


     This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the Anoka 
County Human Services, Dakota County Community Services, Hennepin County Human 
Services & Public Health Department, Ramsey County Social Services, and St. Louis 
County Public Health & Human Services Department (collectively the “Counties”) to 
produce individual client files of certain Waiver recipients pursuant to third-party 
subpoenas. (Doc. No. 249.) On June 15, 2018, the Counties filed a letter indicating that 

they had reached an agreement with Plaintiffs on what would be produced pursuant to the 
subpoena but stating that the Counties took the position that they could not produce 
confidential information subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act 
(“MGDPA”), Minnesota Health Records Act (“MHRA”), and the Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”) without a court order. (Doc. No. 265.)  
    The Court issued an Order on June 27, 2018, requesting that if the Counties 

believed further protection is required than already provided in the Protective Order in 
this case they explain why. (Doc. No. 273.) The Court also requested Plaintiffs confirm 
that their Motion to Compel Third Parties is otherwise resolved. (Id.) The Counties filed 
their Response to the Court’s Order on July 3, 2018. (Doc. No. 279.) They still contend 
that absent a court order, they cannot disclose any information covered by MGDPA and 

the MHRA without exposing themselves to potential liability.              
    The Court does not agree that State by Johnson v. Colonna, 

 
(Minn. Ct. App. 1985) calls into question whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
and the Court’s various orders and protective orders govern the production and 
appropriate handling of confidential information in this case. The Court, however, 

appreciates that the Counties wish to avoid any argument that they will violate state law 
privacy rights by properly responding to a Rule 45 subpoena. Thus, the Court issues this 
Order and will also issue a separate Second Amended Protective Order to avoid 
controversy about the production of confidential information by the Counties to the 
Plaintiffs in this case.                                                  

    Based on the file, records, and the submissions made on behalf of the parties and 
third-party Counties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                          
    1.   Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. No. 249) is GRANTED;                   
    2.   The Counties are ordered to produce individual client files pursuant to 
Plaintiffs’ agreement with each of the Counties; and                      

    3.   A separate Second Amended Protective Order will be issued.      

Dated: July 6, 2018                s/ Becky R. Thorson                    
                                  BECKY R. THORSON                       
                                  United States Magistrate Judge         

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                 


Tenner Murphy, by his guardians Kay and    Civ. No. 16-2623 (DWF/BRT)      
Richard Murphy; Marrie Bottelson; Dionne                                   
Swanson; and on behalf of others similarly                                 
situated,                                                                  

              Plaintiffs,                                                 

v.                                     ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’                
                                     MOTION TO COMPEL AND                 
Emily Johnson Piper in her Capacity as  THIRD-PARTIES’ RESPONSE            
Commissioner of the Minnesota Department                                   
of Human Services,                                                         

              Defendant.                                                  


Justin H. Perl, Esq., Christen Chapman, Esq., and Steven C. Schmidt, Mid-Minnesota 
Legal Aid; Joseph W. Anthony, Esq., Peter McElligott, Esq., and Steven M. Pincus, Esq., 
Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA; and Steven Andrew Smith, Esq., and Laura A. 
Farley, Esq., Nichols Kaster, PLLP, counsel for Plaintiffs.               

Janine Wetzel Kimble, Esq., Scott H. Ikeda, Esq., Aaron Winter, Esq., and Brandon 
Boese, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, counsel for Defendant.  

Bryan D. Frantz, Esq., Anoka County Attorney’s Office, Helen R. Brosnahan, Esq., 
Dakota County Attorney’s Office, Daniel D. Kaczor, Esq., Hennepin County Attorney’s 
Office, Robert B. Roche, Esq., Ramsey County Attorney’s Office, and Benjamin M. 
Stromberg, Esq., St. Louis County Attorney’s Office, counsel for Third Parties. 


     This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the Anoka 
County Human Services, Dakota County Community Services, Hennepin County Human 
Services & Public Health Department, Ramsey County Social Services, and St. Louis 
County Public Health & Human Services Department (collectively the “Counties”) to 
produce individual client files of certain Waiver recipients pursuant to third-party 
subpoenas. (Doc. No. 249.) On June 15, 2018, the Counties filed a letter indicating that 

they had reached an agreement with Plaintiffs on what would be produced pursuant to the 
subpoena but stating that the Counties took the position that they could not produce 
confidential information subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act 
(“MGDPA”), Minnesota Health Records Act (“MHRA”), and the Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”) without a court order. (Doc. No. 265.)  
    The Court issued an Order on June 27, 2018, requesting that if the Counties 

believed further protection is required than already provided in the Protective Order in 
this case they explain why. (Doc. No. 273.) The Court also requested Plaintiffs confirm 
that their Motion to Compel Third Parties is otherwise resolved. (Id.) The Counties filed 
their Response to the Court’s Order on July 3, 2018. (Doc. No. 279.) They still contend 
that absent a court order, they cannot disclose any information covered by MGDPA and 

the MHRA without exposing themselves to potential liability.              
    The Court does not agree that State by Johnson v. Colonna, 

 
(Minn. Ct. App. 1985) calls into question whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
and the Court’s various orders and protective orders govern the production and 
appropriate handling of confidential information in this case. The Court, however, 

appreciates that the Counties wish to avoid any argument that they will violate state law 
privacy rights by properly responding to a Rule 45 subpoena. Thus, the Court issues this 
Order and will also issue a separate Second Amended Protective Order to avoid 
controversy about the production of confidential information by the Counties to the 
Plaintiffs in this case.                                                  

    Based on the file, records, and the submissions made on behalf of the parties and 
third-party Counties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                          
    1.   Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. No. 249) is GRANTED;                   
    2.   The Counties are ordered to produce individual client files pursuant to 
Plaintiffs’ agreement with each of the Counties; and                      

    3.   A separate Second Amended Protective Order will be issued.      

Dated: July 6, 2018                s/ Becky R. Thorson                    
                                  BECKY R. THORSON                       
                                  United States Magistrate Judge