Kasso v. City of Minneapolis
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-02782
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Kasso v. City of Minneapolis, Judge Menendez denied without prejudice plaintiff Leila Kasso's motion to block the City from using an independent medical examination report at trial, finding the motion failed to meet the legal standard for emergency court orders and was filed too early before trial has been scheduled.
Self-represented plaintiffs in federal civil cases who seek to exclude evidence before a trial date has been set, and parties in civil litigation who wish to understand the standards required for emergency court orders and the timing of evidentiary motions.
What happened
In Kasso v. City of Minneapolis (No. 23-cv-2782), Leila Kasso, who is representing herself, asked the court to issue an emergency order preventing the City of Minneapolis from using a medical examination report — obtained by the City in a separate workers' compensation proceeding — in this lawsuit. She argued the report is irrelevant and would cause confusion if introduced as evidence.
The court identified two problems with the motion. First, to get an emergency court order blocking the City from using the report, Ms. Kasso was required to show, among other things, that she faces irreparable (meaning permanent or very serious) harm if the court does nothing and that she is likely to win her underlying case. She did not make either showing, and the relief she sought was not closely enough connected to the conduct she complains about in her main lawsuit. Second, even setting aside the emergency-order standard, her request to exclude evidence from trial is the kind of argument typically raised through what lawyers call a 'motion in limine' — a pre-trial request to keep certain evidence out — and those motions are only filed after a trial date is set. No trial date has been set in this case.
Judge Menendez denied the motion without prejudice, meaning Ms. Kasso is not permanently barred from raising these arguments. She may be able to raise the question of whether the medical examination report should be excluded when the case reaches the summary judgment phase or when the court sets a trial schedule and invites pre-trial motions.
The detailed version
In Kasso v. City of Minneapolis, No. 23-cv-2782 (D. Minn.), Judge Katherine Menendez denied without prejudice plaintiff Leila Kasso's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 150), filed on behalf of herself as a pro se (self-represented) litigant.
Background
Ms. Kasso sought a court order precluding the City of Minneapolis, its counsel, and witnesses from introducing, referencing, or relying on an independent medical examination (IME) report obtained by the City in a separate workers' compensation proceeding. She argued the report is irrelevant to the issues in this federal civil case and that its introduction would cause confusion and waste of time under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Temporary Injunctive Relief Analysis
Under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction requires the moving party to show: (1) a threat of irreparable harm; (2) likelihood of success on the merits; (3) the balance of harms favors the movant; and (4) granting relief is in the public interest. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). The court found Ms. Kasso failed to allege irreparable harm or demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits of her claims. The court also noted that the relief sought must bear a relationship to the conduct alleged in the complaint, citing Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994), and found that connection lacking here.
Premature Evidentiary Ruling
The court construed Ms. Kasso's motion liberally given her pro se status, recognizing that her substantive argument — that the IME report is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under the Federal Rules of Evidence — is the type of argument raised in a motion in limine (a pretrial motion to exclude specific evidence). However, because the case has not yet been set for trial, no motions in limine are yet appropriate. The court further noted that the question of whether the IME report should be considered at the summary judgment stage is also premature and is better resolved in the context of actual summary judgment briefing.
Ruling
Judge Menendez denied the motion without prejudice, meaning Ms. Kasso retains the ability to raise her evidentiary objections to the IME report at the appropriate procedural stage — either in connection with summary judgment briefing or through a motion in limine once a trial schedule is established.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.