Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Docherty partially grants the father's motion to amend a scheduling order and his complaint and grants the county and its employees' motion to amend the scheduling order, but denies the county and employees' motion for a protective order precluding the father from deposing the assistant county attorney who represented the county in a CHIPS case concerning his now-deceased child. The father may amend his complaint to add a negligence claim, but not a claim alleging civil rights violations since that claim would be rendered futile by precedent regarding state-created danger claims involving children removed from, then returned to, abusive environments. He may also add a claim for punitive damages. The father may depose the assistant county attorney, but may only inquire as to her impressions of a particular meeting and to advice she gave that is at issue here. The county and employees have not shown any extraordinary circumstances warranting their proposed amendments to the scheduling order, whereas the father's is "based on a sea-change in Minnesota law."