Reger v. The Associated Press
- David Doty
- 0:23-cv-02983
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 26
In Reger v. The Associated Press, Magistrate Judge Micko granted in part The Associated Press's motion to compel plaintiff Michael Reger to answer certain discovery questions and produce documents related to his damages and reputation, while denying without prejudice The AP's motions to compel non-parties Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. and Bahram Akradi to produce documents, and denying fees to all sides.
Michael Reger (plaintiff, must produce documents and answer interrogatories within 30 days); The Associated Press (defendant, some discovery requests denied, must depose Bahram Akradi before seeking to compel his documents, and must await Reger's production before re-seeking NOG documents); Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. (non-party, not required to produce additional documents for now); Bahram Akradi (non-party, must sit for deposition but not yet required to produce documents).
What happened
In Reger v. The Associated Press, Michael Reger sued The Associated Press for defamation after it published a June 16, 2022 article incorrectly reporting that he had been criminally convicted of securities fraud and stock manipulation when in fact he had only been found civilly liable — a significantly different legal outcome. Reger is seeking more than $50 million in damages, claiming the article damaged his reputation, cost him business opportunities, and caused emotional distress. The AP defended itself in part by arguing Reger is a 'limited purpose public figure,' meaning he would need to prove the article was published with deliberate or reckless disregard for the truth.
The AP filed three separate motions asking the court to order Reger and two non-parties — Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. (NOG), a company Reger founded, and Bahram Akradi, NOG's current chairperson — to hand over documents through the discovery process (the pre-trial exchange of information). The AP argued it needed these materials to challenge Reger's claimed damages, show that other events — not the article — caused any reputational harm, establish how Reger was perceived before and after the article, and show the article was substantially true. Reger objected that many requests were overbroad, irrelevant, or spanning nearly twenty years of his life. NOG and Akradi similarly objected that complying with their subpoenas would be enormously burdensome and largely irrelevant.
Magistrate Judge Micko ordered Reger to fully respond within 30 days to several specific discovery requests: interrogatories (written questions) asking him to describe his damages, mitigation efforts, closest personal and professional contacts, and communications about this lawsuit, as well as requests for documents including those bearing on the truth or falsity of the article, his media contacts, his claimed damages, his medical and mental health records (to the extent he seeks emotional distress damages), financial transactions over $5,000 with identified individuals from 2016 onward, and records about his own business entities. However, Judge Micko denied The AP's requests seeking to probe Reger's criminal culpability — since he was never criminally prosecuted — and denied several other requests as overbroad or disproportionate, including blanket requests for all opinions ever expressed about Reger and all interactions with law enforcement involving him or his family. As for NOG and Akradi, Judge Micko denied both subpoena-enforcement motions without prejudice (meaning The AP can refile), ruling that The AP should first get documents from Reger himself before burdening third parties, and ordering The AP to depose Akradi before seeking to compel his documents. No attorneys' fees were awarded to any party.
The detailed version
This is a defamation action in the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff Michael Reger sued Defendant The Associated Press ('The AP') after The AP published an article on June 16, 2022, that stated Reger had been 'convicted' of securities fraud and stock manipulation and 'acquitted' of insider trading. In fact, Reger had been found civilly liable — not criminally convicted — for securities fraud and control person liability in a shareholder lawsuit arising from his involvement with Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc., and had been found not liable for insider trading in that same civil proceeding. Reger asserts claims of defamation, defamation by implication, defamation per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking over $50 million in damages.
The AP previously moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Reger is a 'limited purpose public figure' — a legal category requiring a plaintiff to show the defendant acted with 'actual malice' (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) to prevail on defamation claims. District Judge Doty denied that motion in part, finding the public figure determination required further factual development. The AP then answered the complaint, raising actual malice as an affirmative defense.
The three pending motions before Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko all arose from discovery disputes.
Motion to Compel Discovery from Reger (Doc. 76) — Granted in Part, Denied in Part
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which entitles parties to discovery of nonprivileged matter relevant to any claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The seeking party must first make a threshold showing of relevance; then the resisting party bears the burden of showing lack of relevance or undue burden.
Post-hearing, the parties agreed that tax returns from 2006 to present and a general temporal scope of 2016 to present are appropriate. The court denied as moot The AP's motion as to that temporal scope and as to Request for Production No. 11 (tax returns).
On interrogatories, the court: - Denied as to No. 4 (all prior litigation): The AP already appeared to possess information about at least nine lawsuits, limiting the marginal relevance of compelling a fuller response. - Denied as to Nos. 5 and 6 (Reger's knowledge of the Dakota Plains fraud scheme and his role in concealing his relationship to NOG and Dakota Plains): Reger was never criminally prosecuted, so his criminal culpability is not at issue. Reger's existing responses — that his knowledge derives from public sources — were found sufficient. A motion to compel cannot be used to challenge the truthfulness of an answer. - Granted as to Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 13: These seek information about Reger's damages (economic, reputational, emotional), his mitigation efforts, his five closest personal friends and business associates from 2005 to present, and all communications with third parties concerning The AP, the article, the lawsuit, or the complaint's allegations. The court found these relevant and proportional.
On requests for production, the court: - Granted as to Nos. 1, 2, 3 (documents used to answer discovery, documents bearing on truth/falsity of the article, documents reflecting Reger's belief The AP knew the article was false): relevant and proportional. - Granted as to No. 5 (communications with journalists or news organizations, 2016 to present): relevant to Reger's relationship with media and reputation. - Granted as to No. 10 (documents concerning claimed damages): relevant given the $50 million claim. - Granted as to Nos. 12 and 14 (resumes/biographies since 2006; all communications with others about The AP, the article, or the lawsuit): relevant and proportional. - Granted as to No. 15 (medical and psychological health records to the extent Reger seeks emotional distress damages): directly relevant to damages. - Granted as to No. 17 (financial transactions with identified individuals, 2016 to present), but limited to transactions exceeding $5,000 given the $50 million damages claim. - Granted as modified as to Nos. 18, 19 (statements and documents from third parties about the article or lawsuit): relevant and proportional. - Granted as modified as to No. 20 (entity formation and financial documents for Reger's businesses and family entities): granted only as to Reger himself, not his family members. - Denied as to Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 (litigation documents, Dakota Plains stock ownership, SEC filing documents, communications with Ryan Gilbertson/Douglas Hoskins, communications with named individuals about Dakota Plains): The AP's attempt to establish Reger's criminal culpability from a civil case largely 'defies logic'; to the extent marginally relevant, not proportional given public availability of court records. - Denied as to No. 13 (all documents in which any person expressed any opinion about Reger): overbroad — no limit on document type, subject matter, or who expressed the opinion. - Denied as to No. 16 (all documents about interactions between Reger or his family and law enforcement including local and federal agencies): overbroad; does not limit interactions to anything relevant to this case, especially as to family members.
The court declined to award The AP attorneys' fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C), finding expenses unwarranted on the current record.
Motion to Compel NOG (Doc. 83) — Denied Without Prejudice
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, a party issuing a subpoena to a non-party must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense. NOG had already spent over 400 attorney hours, reviewed over 40,000 documents, and produced materials related to Reger's termination, his removal from NOG's website, post-article communications, and his reputation. Expanding production to 2016 would expand the document universe to over 105,000 documents. The court found that NOG had satisfied its discovery obligations and that compelling additional production before The AP obtained discovery from Reger himself would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate. The AP's argument that any added burden on NOG was Reger's fault for not producing documents was rejected. The motion is denied without prejudice; The AP may renew after receiving Reger's production. NOG's request for attorneys' fees was denied, though the court noted that future motion practice could result in revisiting the fee question.
Motion to Compel Akradi (Doc. 112) — Denied Without Prejudice
Applying the same Rule 45 standard, the court found that before The AP could compel burdensome document production from Akradi (including forensic imaging of his phone and searches of emails and financial records), it must first take less burdensome steps. During oral argument, Akradi's counsel offered to have Akradi sit for a deposition. The AP did not agree outright. The court ordered The AP to depose Akradi first; if that is insufficient, The AP may renew its motion to compel document production. Akradi's request for attorneys' fees was denied at this time.
The opinion was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko on October 22, 2025.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 26-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.