Edner v. Jacobson
Ryan C. Edner v. Jason Jacobson, Redwood County Sheriff’s Department, and Bostyn Thompson, City of Morgan Police Department
- Susan Nelson
- 0:19-cv-02486
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Edner v. Jacobson, Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled all objections filed by pro se plaintiff Ryan C. Edner to a magistrate judge's earlier order that had extended the defendants' deadline to answer the complaint and denied Edner's request for a court order forcing simultaneous disclosure of sealed state court records.
Ryan C. Edner, a self-represented plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against two law enforcement officers and their departments, who sought to challenge procedural rulings about the defendants' response deadline and access to sealed state court records from his underlying criminal case.
What happened
In Edner v. Jacobson, Ryan C. Edner, who is representing himself, sued Jason Jacobson of the Redwood County Sheriff's Department and Bostyn Thompson of the City of Morgan Police Department in a case that appears to involve an underlying criminal matter in state court. The case reached this stage when Edner objected to a January 20, 2026 ruling by Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, which had (1) extended the defendants' deadline to file their response to the complaint, tying it to a pending state court decision about access to sealed records, and (2) denied Edner's request for a court order requiring state officials to produce sealed criminal case records to both sides at the same time.
Edner raised three objections: that the extended deadline created an open-ended delay, that he should have received simultaneous access to the sealed records, and that certain factual findings in the magistrate judge's order — including the reason he missed a December 18, 2025 hearing during a blizzard — should be corrected. The defendants argued that Edner failed to meet the legal standard required to overturn the magistrate judge's rulings, and they also disclosed that they had already shared the state court records they received with Edner on the same day they got them.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled all of Edner's objections and affirmed Magistrate Judge Brisbois' January 20, 2026 order in full. The court found that the deadline objection had become moot because the state court issued its decision on January 29, 2026, two days after Edner filed his objections, and the defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. On the sealed records issue, the court found Edner cited no legal authority showing the magistrate judge clearly erred or acted contrary to law. As for the factual corrections Edner sought, the court found those do not qualify as proper objections under the applicable rules because the findings were not decisive to the outcome of the motions.
The detailed version
- Edner v. Jacobson, Case No. 19-cv-2486 (SRN/LIB), United States District Court, District of Minnesota **Presiding Judge:** United States District Judge Susan Richard Nelson
- Leo I. Brisbois **Date of Order:** February 20, 2026
Parties
- Plaintiff (self-represented): Ryan C. Edner - Defendants: Jason Jacobson, Redwood County Sheriff's Department; Bostyn Thompson, City of Morgan Police Department - Defense counsel: Riley P. Boehm and Vicki A. Hruby, Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, PLLP
Procedural Posture
This order resolves Edner's objections (Doc. No. 70) to Magistrate Judge Brisbois' January 20, 2026 Order (Doc. No. 68). The magistrate judge's order had: (1) granted in part and denied in part Edner's Motion to Enter a Protective Order (Doc. No. 37); and (2) granted the defendants' Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint (Doc. No. 46). Edner filed his objections on January 27, 2026.
Legal Standard for Reviewing Magistrate Judge's Non-Dispositive Orders
Because the rulings at issue are non-dispositive — meaning they did not resolve or terminate any claims or the case as a whole — the district court reviews them only for clear error or contrary-to-law rulings. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Local Rule 72.2. The 'clear error' standard is described as 'extremely deferential.' An order is 'clearly erroneous' only when the reviewing court has a 'definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' An order is 'contrary to law' when it 'fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.'
Objection 1 — Extension of Defendants' Deadline to Answer
Magistrate Judge Brisbois had extended defendants' response deadline to 21 days after the state court issued its ruling on defendants' request for access to sealed records from Edner's underlying criminal case (State of Minnesota v. Edner, No. 64-CR-15-649). Edner objected that tying the deadline to an uncertain state court decision created an open-ended risk of delay.
However, two days after Edner filed his objections, on January 29, 2026, the Redwood County District Court issued its decision on the sealed records access request. Because defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 76) within the 21-day window, the court found Edner's concern about open-ended delay was moot. Objection overruled.
Objection 2 — Simultaneous Access to Sealed State Court Records
Magistrate Judge Brisbois denied Edner's request for an order requiring state officials to produce sealed records from his underlying criminal case simultaneously to both parties. The magistrate judge noted that Edner provided no legal authority for such an order and that Edner had declined to initiate or stipulate to the state court's existing process for requesting access to sealed records.
In his objections, Edner again cited no authority showing clear error or a contrary-to-law ruling. Instead, he requested a new 'modification' — that defendants be required to produce any sealed materials they receive within seven days. The court noted this request was not before the magistrate judge and therefore was not a proper basis for an objection. The court also noted that defendants represented they had already provided Edner with the state court records they received on January 30, 2026, on the same day and in the same format they received them, and agreed to do the same for records received from third-party executive branch agencies. The parties had not yet worked out logistics for County and City records as of February 10, 2026. The court suggested the parties would likely resolve this without judicial intervention. Objection overruled.
Objection 3 — Miscellaneous Factual Findings
Edner asked the court to modify certain factual recitations in the magistrate judge's order to reflect that: (1) he missed the December 18, 2025 hearing due to blizzard conditions; (2) he filed an emergency motion seeking a continuance because of the weather; and (3) his reason for not signing the defendants' proposed stipulation was a request for 'parity safeguards,' not opposition to access to the sealed records.
The court found that these requests do not qualify as proper objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) or Local Rule 72.2, which require a showing that the magistrate judge's order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court also found that the factual findings Edner sought to modify were not determinative of any issue before the magistrate judge. Objection overruled.
Disposition
Edner's Objections (Doc. No. 70) are OVERRULED in their entirety. Magistrate Judge Brisbois' January 20, 2026 Order (Doc. No. 68) is AFFIRMED. The case continues, with defendants having filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 76).
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.