2020 12 08 - 70 - Declaration of City

CASE 0:19-cv-01122-WMW-LIB Doc.
70 Filed 12/08/20 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
The Satanic Temple, Case No. 19-CV-01122 (WMW/LIB)
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MONTE A. MILLS

IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
v. MOTION TO COMPEL, MOTION TO
AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER,
City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
THE COMPLAINT
Defendant.
I, Monte A. Mills, hereby declare:
1. I am a partner with the law firm of Greene Espel PLLP, and am one of
the attorneys representing the City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota (the “City”) in this
matter. I make and submit this declaration based on my personal knowledge of the
matters stated herein and in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, motion to
amend the scheduling order, and motion for leave to amend the Complaint.
2. Attached hereto are true and correct copies of documents cited in
opposing memoranda:
Exhibit 1: Nov. 6, 2020 Email with attachments from Matt Kezhaya to me

and my colleagues;
Exhibit 2: Nov. 6, 2020 Letter from me to Matt Kezhaya;
Exhibit 3: Nov. 9, 2020 Letter from me to Matt Kezhaya;
Exhibit 4: Nov. 9, 2020 Email with attachments from Matt Kezhaya to me;
Exhibit 5: Nov. 4, 2020 Letter from Matt Kezhaya to me;

CASE 0:19-cv-01122-WMW-LIB Doc. 70 Filed 12/08/20 Page 2 of 3
Exhibit 7: Aug. 25, 2020 City’s discovery requests directed to Plaintiff;
Exhibit 9: Excerpt from @LucienGreaves Twitter feed, last viewed Aug. 18,
2020 (marked as Dep. Ex. 18);
Exhibit 10: Aug. 7, 2017 Email from the City in response to Data Practices
Act request;
Exhibit 11: Nov. 24, 2020 Email with attached Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
notice from Matt Kezhaya to me (letter attachment included as
a separate exhibit above);
Exhibit 12: Nov. 30, 2020 Email from my colleague, Sam Clark, to Matt
Kezhaya.
Exhibit 13: Oct. 23, 2020 Deficiency letter from me to Plaintiff;
Exhibit 14: Nov. 2, 2020 Letter from me to Plaintiff;
Exhibit 15: Oct. 15, 2020 Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests directed
to the City;
Exhibit 16: Nov. 10, 2020 Letter from me to Plaintiff; and
Exhibit 17: Article, ““Satanic Temple lawsuit against Belle Plaine will move
forward, despite court dismissal of most of its claims,” Star
Tribune, August 4, 2020.
2
CASE 0:19-cv-01122-WMW-LIB Doc. 70 Filed 12/08/20 Page 3 of 3
I declare under perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and this
declaration was executed this 8th day of December, 2020, in the City of
Minneapolis, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
s/ Monte A. Mills
Monte A. Mills
3
CASE 0:19-cv-01122-WMW-LIB Doc. 70-1 Filed 12/08/20 Page 1 of 103
Exhibit 1
From: Matthew A. Kezhaya <matt@kezhaya.law>

Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 4:28 PM
To: Monte A. Mills; Samuel J. Clark
Cc: jason.juran@robertrhopper.com; Kathleen A. Dolphin; Joyce A. Kammueller
Subject: Re: The Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota (19-CV-1122) - Service of Deposition
Notices [GE-R7Z3UVVA5NW4-177010129-22]
Attachments: 2020 11 06 vose.pdf; 2020 11 06 coop.pdf; 2020 11 06 30(b)(6).pdf; 2020 11 06 meyer.pdf
Categories: Filed
I have not heard back from anyone about my concern or about extending deadlines. I have
arranged a hearing before Judge Brisbois on a forthcoming motion for protective order and
extension of deadlines. The hearing is set for December 15 at 1:30 pm in the Devitt
Courtroom. In light of the timing issue, I am noticing the depositions of
Mayor Meyer, Councilmember Coop, City Attorney Vose, and one or more 30(b)(6)
deponents. See attached.
Matthew A. Kezhaya

Arkansas office:
Kezhaya Law PLC
1202 NE McClain Rd
Bentonville, AR 72712
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

Minnesota office (MN license pending):
Kezhaya Law PLC
100 S. Fifth Street, 19th Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55402
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

This message may contain confidential or privileged information and was intended for a
particular recipient. If it appears that I sent this to you in error, please inform me and delete
this message.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 11:43 AM Matthew A. Kezhaya <matt@kezhaya.law> wrote:
I note that you have separately indicated "Doug Mesner" from "Lucien Greaves." As we have
previously explained, this is the same person. Please withdraw the notice of deposition for one
or the other.
I have also left a voicemail with Monte requesting a call-back. As detailed in my previous
letter, we object to taking a 30(b)(6) deposition as well as depositions of everyone in their
personal capacities. As is clear from the 30(b)(6) notice, the City is looking to discover all
relevant facts from the 30(b)(6) deponent. So, it seems to me that you are trying to quadruple
1
our discovery expenses, which is obviously improper. Because I have received no response
from you which ameliorates that concern, my concern is solidified. Please address this matter
promptly.
Matthew A. Kezhaya

Arkansas office:
Kezhaya Law PLC
1202 NE McClain Rd
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

Kezhaya Law PLC
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

this message.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 4:47 PM Joyce A. Kammueller <JKammueller@greeneespel.com> wrote:
On behalf of Monte Mills, attached are the following deposition notices in the matter referenced above:

1. City of Belle Plaine’s Notice of Deposition of Lucien Greaves;
2. City of Belle Plaine’s Notice of Deposition of Douglas Mesner;
3. City of Belle Plaine’s Notice of Deposition of Alex Medlin;
4. City of Belle Plaine’s Notice of Deposition of Malcom Jarry; and
5. City of Belle Plaine’s Notice of Deposition of Rule 30(B)(6) of Plaintiff

Thank you,
Joyce A. Kammueller
Legal Administrative Assistant
612.373.8382 direct
2
jkammueller@greeneespel.com
GREENE ESPEL PLLP 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402-3362
612.373.0830 main www.greeneespel.com
IMPORTANT: This electronic message contains information from Greene Espel PLLP or its attorneys that is presumptively confidential
and, if sent to clients or co-counsel, may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. The unauthorized use, distribution, or
re-transmission of any part of this message by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are
not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately and delete all copies.

3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE SATANIC TEMPLE CASE NO. 19-CV-01122 (WMW/LIB)
PLAINTIFF,
V. TST’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF

THE CITY OF BELLE PLAINE, MN
CITY OF BELLE PLAINE, MN
DEFENDANT.
To: Defendant by and through its counsel of record, Monte Mills and Samuel Clark, 222 S. Ninth
Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402; MMills@greeneespel.com and SClark@greeneespel.com.
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT, pursuant to FCRP 26 and 30, TST will take the deposition of the City
of Belle Plaine, MN through one or more of Plaintiff’s officers, directors, managing agents, or other
persons who consent to testify on its behalf, concerning the matters set forth below.
The deposition(s) will take place by oral examination, before a person authorized to administer
oaths and take testimony and by stenographic and videographic means. The deposition(s) will take
place at the law offices of Robert R. Hopper & Associates, LLC 333 S 7th St #2450, Minneapolis,
MN 55402 on November 19, 2020 beginning at 9:00 A.M. CST and continuing thereafter until
complete.
Matters for examination:

1. Origins of the Veteran’s Park
2. Original installation of Joe
3. Complaint(s) to the City about the constitutionality of Joe
4. Demand letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation
5. Removal of Joe
19-cv-1122 – notice of deposition Page 1 of 3

6. Origins of the limited public forum concept
7. Development of the limited public forum concept
8. Meetings and participants constituting the internal decision-making about the limited public
forum concept
9. Implementation of the limited public forum concept
10. Replacement of Joe
11. TST’s request to place a display
12. Meetings and participants constituting the internal decision-making about TST's request
13. Acceptance of TST's request to place the display
14. Complaint(s) to the City about TST’s display
15. Protests about TST’s display or Joe
16. Bases of the City’s determination that “allowing privately-owned memorials or displays in its
Park no longer meets the intent or purpose of the Park.”
17. Bases of the City’s determination “that the continuation of the limited public forum may
encourage vandalism in the Park, reduce the safety, serenity, and decorum of the Park,
unnecessarily burden City staff and law enforcement, and negatively impact the public’s health,
safety, and welfare.”
18. Meetings and participants constituting the internal decision-making about whether to close
the limited public forum
19. The removal of Joe
20. The preclusion of TST's display
21. As pertains to the Joe display / TST display controversy:
a. City’s communications with TST between January 1, 2017 and July 1, 2017
b. City’s communications with the Veteran's Group between January 1, 2017 and present
c. City’s communications with Father Brian Lynch between January 1, 2017 and present
d. City’s communications with Alliance Defending Freedom between January 1, 2017

and present.

22. Any community feedback about Joe
23. Any community feedback about TST's display
Propounded on November 6, 2020,

on behalf of The Satanic Temple
By: /s/ Matthew A. Kezhaya
Matthew A. Kezhaya, ABA# 2014161
1202 NE McClain Rd
phone: (479) 431-6112
facsimile: (479) 282-2892
email: matt@kezhaya.law
CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE OF SERVICE
NOTICE IS GIVEN that I, Matthew A. Kezhaya, served the foregoing document by email to the
following on November 6, 2020: Monte A. Mills at MMills@greeneespel.com and Samuel J. Clark at
SClark@greeneespel.com (Attorneys for Defendant) /s/ Matthew A. Kezhaya


PLAINTIFF,

COUNCILMEMBER CARY COOP
DEFENDANT.
To: Defendant and its counsel of record, Monte Mills and Samuel Clark, 222 S. Ninth Street, Suite
2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402.
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT, pursuant to FCRP 26 and 30, TST will take the deposition of
Councilmember Cary Coop by oral examination, before a person authorized to administer oaths and
take testimony and by stenographic and videographic means. The deposition will take place in person
in the law offices of Robert R. Hopper & Associates, LLC 333 S 7th St #2450, Minneapolis, MN
55402 on November 13, 2020 beginning at 9:00 am and continuing thereafter until complete.

1202 NE McClain Rd
phone: (479) 431-6112
facsimile: (479) 282-2892



PLAINTIFF,

MAYOR CHRISTOPHER G. MEYER
DEFENDANT.
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT, pursuant to FCRP 26 and 30, TST will take the deposition of Mayor
Christopher G. Meyer by oral examination, before a person authorized to administer oaths and take
testimony and by stenographic and videographic means. The deposition will take place in person in
the law offices of Robert R. Hopper & Associates, LLC 333 S 7th St #2450, Minneapolis, MN 55402
on November 17, 2020 beginning at 9:00 am and continuing thereafter until complete.

1202 NE McClain Rd
phone: (479) 431-6112
facsimile: (479) 282-2892


PLAINTIFF,

CITY ATTORNEY ROBERT J. V. VOSE
DEFENDANT.
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT, pursuant to FCRP 26 and 30, TST will take the deposition of City
Attorney Robert J. V. Vose by oral examination, before a person authorized to administer oaths and
take testimony and by stenographic and videographic means. The deposition will take place in person
in the law offices of Robert R. Hopper & Associates, LLC 333 S 7th St #2450, Minneapolis, MN
55402 on November 13, 2020 beginning at 2:00 pm CST and continuing thereafter until complete.

1202 NE McClain Rd
phone: (479) 431-6112
facsimile: (479) 282-2892

Exhibit 2
Monte A. Mills
612-373-8363 direct
mmills@greeneespel.com
November 6, 2020
VIA E-MAIL
Jason S. Juran Matthew A. Kezhaya

Robert R Hopper & Associates, LLC Kezhaya Law PLC
333 South 7th Street, Suite 2450 1202 NE McClain Rd
Minneapolis, MN 55402 Bentonville, AR 72712
jason.juran@robertrhopper.com matt@kezhaya.law
Re: The Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, et al.

Court File No. 19-cv-01122 (WMW-LIB)
Dear Counsel:
I write regarding The Satanic Temple’s (“TST” or “Plaintiff”) interest in taking depositions
of the Mayor and Councilmember from the City of Belle Plaine. In short, the City will not consent
to produce either Mayor Meyer or Councilmember Coop for depositions. Nor will the City agree
to depositions of any other Councilmember. This has consistently been the City’s position since
the very first Rule 26(f) meeting with your predecessor as counsel for TST.
Because depositions are the most burdensome and disruptive form of discovery, courts
routinely prohibit plaintiffs from taking depositions of elected officials. See Bituminous Materials,
Inc. v. Rice County, 126. F.3d 1068, 1071 n.2 (8th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court’s order
prohibiting depositions of Rice County Commissioners, and citing Stone's Auto Mart, Inc. v. City of
St. Paul, 721 F. Supp. 206, 211 (D. Minn. 1989)). The purpose of testimonial immunity is to prevent
the disruption and burden that being subjected to a deposition imposes on public officials. Public
policy requires that the time and energies of public officials be conserved for the public's business.
Furthermore, after the Court’s order dated July 31, 2020, Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is
for promissory estoppel against the City. The Court’s order dismissed all individual defendants,
including the Mayor and Councilmembers. Plaintiff has no claims remaining in the case, except
promissory estoppel. That claim against the City involves three questions: “(1) Was there a clear
and definite promise? (2) Did the promisor intend to induce reliance, and did such reliance occur?
(3) Must the promise be enforced to prevent injustice?” Olson v. Synergistic Techs. Bus. Sys., Inc.,
628 N.W.2d 142, 152 (Minn. 2001) (citing Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 369, 372
(Minn. 1995)). Plaintiff does not need depositions of the Mayor and Councilmembers for such
inquiries. Depositions of the Mayor and Councilmembers are not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence relevant to the promissory-estoppel claim. Plaintiff has, at best, alleged that
the permit issued to TST under Resolution 17-020 is the clear and definite “promise” made by the
City. See Compl. ¶ 107; Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 4382756,
at *8 (D. Minn. July 31, 2020). Plaintiff has not alleged that any other statements or
communications from the Mayor or Councilmembers amounted to a clear and definite promise.
Any information that possibly could be relevant to the other elements of Plaintiff’s promissory-
Jason S. Juran
Matthew A. Kezhaya
November 6, 2020
Page 2
estoppel claim can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive than depositions of the Mayor and Councilmembers.
It gets worse. The City requested in discovery from Plaintiff all communications that
Plaintiff sent to or received from the City at any time from 2017 to the present, as well as all
documents that discuss or relate in any way to Belle Plaine, Minnesota. In response, Plaintiff
produced no documents reflecting communications Plaintiff received directly from the Mayor and
Councilmembers individually. This means Plaintiffs possess no communications directly from the
Mayor and Councilmembers individually. Plaintiff thus lacks a valid justification for asking the
Mayor and Councilmembers any deposition questions that could be relevant to its promissory-
estoppel claim.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Monte A. Mills
Monte A. Mills
MM/jak
cc: Samuel J. Clark
Exhibit 3
Monte A. Mills
612-373-8363 direct
November 9, 2020
VIA E-MAIL


Dear Counsel:
I write in response to emails that Matthew Kezhaya sent on behalf of The Satanic Temple
(“TST” or “Plaintiff”) on Friday, November 6, 2020, at 11:44 AM and 4:29 PM. As an initial matter,
please understand that you are not entitled to a response to an email within four or five hours. By
contrast, we gave you a week to respond to requests, but we have been disappointed anyway. On
October 23, we sent you a letter requesting November dates for scheduling the depositions of
Malcolm Jarry, Douglas Mesner, Lucien Greaves, Ash Astaroth, and Alex Medlin, as well as a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition of TST. On October 30, you responded to our October 23 letter by providing
no dates in November or otherwise for those depositions. After your November 4 letter suggested
that you are available after November 18 for depositions and that it would be appropriate to
schedule depositions without detailed information about witnesses’ availability in mind, we served
notices of depositions for Lucien Greaves (November 20), Douglas Mesner (November 20),
Malcolm Jarry (November 23), Alex Medlin (November 24), and the Rule 30(B)(6) of TST
(November 30).
Your November 6 email states that you previously explained that "Doug Mesner" and
"Lucien Greaves" are the same person. If that explanation truly happened, we’d appreciate you
pointing to the page and line of the correspondence where it is. We don’t see it. (As our
November 2 letter observed, your response failed to mention Douglas Mesner at all. Your
November 4 letter likewise does not mention Mesner.) Please plan on the deposition of Lucien
Greaves proceeding on November 20, 2020, at 9:00 AM (CST) as the notice states. Since the notice
of deposition for Douglas Mesner appears to be unnecessary, we withdraw it.
You do not have any legal basis for prohibiting the depositions of Lucien Greaves, Malcolm
Jarry, Alex Medlin, and the Rule 30(B)(6) of TST. Your November 4 letter admitted that Lucien
Greaves, Malcolm Jarry, and Alex Medlin are “constituents” of TST. The term "constituent" is
defined in Comment 1 to Rule 1.13: “Officers, directors, employees, and shareholders are the
constituents of the corporate organizational client.” As such, they are appropriate deponents. We
provided far more than two weeks’ notice for them, and we could have provided more notice if
Jason S. Juran
Matthew A. Kezhaya
November 9, 2020
Page 2
you had promptly responded to our initial October 23 request. We expect those depositions to
proceed as noticed.
On November 6, you served notices of depositions for Councilmember Cary Coop

(November 13), City Attorney Robert Vose (November 13), Mayor Christopher Meyer (November
17), and what appears to be a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the City of Belle Plaine (November 19).
As a threshold matter, it is odd that—in response to our October 23 request for deposition dates
for Plaintiff’s witnesses—your November 4 letter stated that you are available after November 18
for depositions. All but one of your notices directed to the City set dates before November 18.
Also, it is even more odd that your November 4 letter stated, “two weeks will be the minimum
time necessary to arrange and prepare for the deposition,” (page 2, lines 2–3), but every single
one of your deposition notices directed to the City provide less than two weeks’ notice. We object.
Please withdraw those notices of depositions.
Our letter dated November 6, 2020 already explained why the City will not consent to
produce the Mayor or Councilmembers for depositions. We stand by that reasoning. Please
withdraw those notices of depositions.
The City may be willing to proceed with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the City of Belle
Plaine sometime the week of November 30 – December 4 if Plaintiff properly narrows the scope
of the matters for examination. Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is for promissory estoppel against
the City. The Court dismissed all other claims. See Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, --- F. Supp.
3d ---, 2020 WL 4382756 (D. Minn. July 31, 2020). The promissory-estoppel claim against the City
involves three questions: “(1) Was there a clear and definite promise? (2) Did the promisor intend
to induce reliance, and did such reliance occur? (3) Must the promise be enforced to prevent
injustice?” Olson v. Synergistic Techs. Bus. Sys., Inc., 628 N.W.2d 142, 152 (Minn. 2001) (citing Ruud
v. Great Plains Supply, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 369, 372 (Minn. 1995)). In what appears to be a notice of
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the City of Belle Plaine, Plaintiff lists numerous matters for examination
that are far beyond the scope of what issues remain in this case. The Court already held that “Belle
Plaine’s decision to rescind Resolution 17-020 and thereby close the limited public forum does
not give rise to a First Amendment challenge.” Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, --- F. Supp.
3d ---, 2020 WL 4382756 (D. Minn. July 31, 2020). The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s equal-
protection claim, contract-related claims, and RLUIPA claim. Id. The matters for examination of the
City’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness(es) must be relevant to Plaintiff’s promissory-estoppel claim against
the City. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1) (limiting discovery to information relevant to “claims and
defenses and proportional to the needs of the case”). Plaintiff may not undertake wide-ranging
examination on irrelevant matters or dismissed claims. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437
U.S. 340, 352 (1978) (“it is proper to deny discovery of matter that is relevant only to claims or
defenses that have been stricken”).
If Plaintiff withdraws all other matters for examination, the City will agree to a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition of the City sometime the week of November 30 – December 4 if Plaintiff agrees to limit
it to the following matters for examination identified in Plaintiff’s notice:
Jason S. Juran
Matthew A. Kezhaya
November 9, 2020
Page 3
 9. Implementation of the limited public forum concept
 11. TST’s request to place a display
 12. Meetings and participants constituting the internal decision-making about

TST's request
 13. Acceptance of TST's request to place the display
 21.a. City’s communications with TST between January 1, 2017 and July 1, 2017
The City also will not consent to produce the City Attorney for a deposition. In Shelton v.
American Motors Corporation, the Eighth Circuit precluded the deposition of an in-house counsel
for the defendant because the plaintiff could not satisfy a rigorous three-part standard. 805 F.2d
1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986). The scope of Shelton and its progeny precludes Plaintiff’s effort to
depose the City Attorney in this case. Plaintiff cannot show that (1) no means exist to obtain the
information other than deposing the City Attorney; (2) the information Plaintiff seeks from the
City Attorney is relevant and not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product
doctrine; and (3) the information Plaintiff seeks from the City Attorney is crucial to the preparation
of its case. The City requested in discovery from Plaintiff all communications that Plaintiff sent to
or received from the City at any time from 2017 to the present, as well as all documents that
discuss or relate in any way to Belle Plaine, Minnesota. In response, Plaintiff produced no
documents reflecting communications Plaintiff received directly from the City Attorney.
Presumably, this means Plaintiffs possess no communications directly from the City Attorney.
Plaintiff thus cannot show that information from the City Attorney would be relevant and non-
privileged. Plaintiff also cannot demonstrate that information from the City Attorney is “crucial”
to its promissory-estoppel claim. Plaintiff has, at best, alleged that the permit issued to Plaintiff
under Resolution 17-020 is the clear and definite “promise” made by the City. See Compl. ¶ 107;
Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 4382756, at *8 (D. Minn. July 31,
2020). Plaintiff has not alleged that any other statements or communications from the City
Attorney amounted to a clear and definite promise. Plaintiff simply has no justification for asking
the City Attorney any deposition questions that could be relevant to its promissory-estoppel claim.
And, as demonstrated by our proposal for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the City, Plaintiff has
alternative means of obtaining information about its promissory-estoppel claim from the City.
Please withdraw the notice of deposition.
Furthermore, your redactions on documents in Plaintiff’s document production lack a legal

basis. As our October 23 letter stated, redactions are inappropriate where no protective order
authorizes the protection of non-privileged information. Our October 23 letter already pointed
out that Plaintiff filed a publicly available Complaint and Exhibits, which identify the name Douglas
Mesner as associated with The Satanic Temple. The Exhibits to the Complaint—which identify the
name Douglas Mesner as associated with The Satanic Temple—have been publicly available since
Jason S. Juran
Matthew A. Kezhaya
November 9, 2020
Page 4
April 25, 2019. You have failed to address this problem. Please produce the unredacted
documents.
Finally, we will not stipulate to an extension of the scheduling order. The deadline for
motions to amend the pleadings expired last year on October 15—we will not stipulate to a revival
of that deadline. Again, the Court dismissed all Plaintiff’s claims except the promissory-estoppel
claim against the City. Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 4382756
(D. Minn. July 31, 2020). To be clear, we will oppose any attempt to amend the complaint at this
late date.
We propose a telephone conference on November 10, 2020, at 2:00 PM (CST). We plan to

dial you at (479) 431-6112.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Monte A. Mills
Monte A. Mills
MM/jak
cc: Samuel J. Clark
Exhibit 4

Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 3:42 PM
Cc: jason.juran@robertrhopper.com; Kathleen A. Dolphin; Joyce A. Kammueller
Subject: Re: The Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota (19-CV-1122) - Service of Deposition
Notices [GE-R7Z3UVVA5NW4-177010129-22]
Attachments: 2020 11 09 revised 30(b)(6).pdf; 2020 11 09 good faith letter.pdf
I still have not heard back from my earlier phone call. I have placed additional calls to Monte,
Sam, and Joy. Please see attached for a final good faith effort to confer and a revised 30(b)(6)
notice.
Matthew A. Kezhaya

Arkansas office:
Kezhaya Law PLC
1202 NE McClain Rd
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

Kezhaya Law PLC
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

this message.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 4:27 PM Matthew A. Kezhaya <matt@kezhaya.law> wrote:
I have not heard back from anyone about my concern or about extending deadlines. I have
arranged a hearing before Judge Brisbois on a forthcoming motion for protective order and
extension of deadlines. The hearing is set for December 15 at 1:30 pm in the Devitt
Courtroom. In light of the timing issue, I am noticing the depositions of
Mayor Meyer, Councilmember Coop, City Attorney Vose, and one or more 30(b)(6)
deponents. See attached.
Matthew A. Kezhaya

Arkansas office:
Kezhaya Law PLC
1202 NE McClain Rd
1
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

Kezhaya Law PLC
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

this message.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 11:43 AM Matthew A. Kezhaya <matt@kezhaya.law> wrote:
I note that you have separately indicated "Doug Mesner" from "Lucien Greaves." As we have
previously explained, this is the same person. Please withdraw the notice of deposition for one
or the other.
I have also left a voicemail with Monte requesting a call-back. As detailed in my previous
letter, we object to taking a 30(b)(6) deposition as well as depositions of everyone in their
personal capacities. As is clear from the 30(b)(6) notice, the City is looking to discover all
relevant facts from the 30(b)(6) deponent. So, it seems to me that you are trying to
quadruple our discovery expenses, which is obviously improper. Because I have received no
response from you which ameliorates that concern, my concern is solidified. Please address
this matter promptly.
Matthew A. Kezhaya

Arkansas office:
Kezhaya Law PLC
1202 NE McClain Rd
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

Kezhaya Law PLC
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

this message.

2

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 4:47 PM Joyce A. Kammueller <JKammueller@greeneespel.com> wrote:
On behalf of Monte Mills, attached are the following deposition notices in the matter referenced above:

1. City of Belle Plaine’s Notice of Deposition of Lucien Greaves;
2. City of Belle Plaine’s Notice of Deposition of Douglas Mesner;
3. City of Belle Plaine’s Notice of Deposition of Alex Medlin;
4. City of Belle Plaine’s Notice of Deposition of Malcom Jarry; and
5. City of Belle Plaine’s Notice of Deposition of Rule 30(B)(6) of Plaintiff

Thank you,
Joyce A. Kammueller
612.373.8382 direct
jkammueller@greeneespel.com
612.373.0830 main www.greeneespel.com
IMPORTANT: This electronic message contains information from Greene Espel PLLP or its attorneys that is presumptively confidential
and, if sent to clients or co-counsel, may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. The unauthorized use, distribution, or
re-transmission of any part of this message by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are
not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately and delete all copies.

3

PLAINTIFF,

THE CITY OF BELLE PLAINE, MN
DEFENDANT.
To: Defendant by and through its counsel of record, Monte Mills and Samuel Clark, 222 S. Ninth
Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402; MMills@greeneespel.com and SClark@greeneespel.com.
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT, pursuant to FCRP 26 and 30, TST will take the deposition of the City
of Belle Plaine, MN through one or more of Plaintiff’s officers, directors, managing agents, or other
persons who consent to testify on its behalf, concerning the matters set forth below.
The deposition(s) will take place by oral examination, before a person authorized to administer
oaths and take testimony and by stenographic and videographic means. The deposition(s) will take
place at the law offices of Robert R. Hopper & Associates, LLC 333 S 7th St #2450, Minneapolis,
MN 55402 on November 19, 2020 beginning at 9:00 A.M. CST and continuing thereafter until
complete.
Matters for examination:

1. Origins of the Veteran’s Park
2. Original installation of Joe
3. Complaint(s) to the City about the constitutionality of Joe
4. Demand letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation
5. Removal of Joe

6. Origins of the limited public forum concept
7. Development of the limited public forum concept
8. Meetings and participants constituting the internal decision-making about the limited public
forum concept
9. Implementation of the limited public forum concept
10. Replacement of Joe
11. TST’s request to place a display
12. Meetings and participants constituting the internal decision-making about TST's request
13. Acceptance of TST's request to place the display
14. Complaint(s) to the City about TST’s display
15. Protests about TST’s display or Joe
16. Bases of the City’s determination that “allowing privately-owned memorials or displays in its
Park no longer meets the intent or purpose of the Park.”
17. Bases of the City’s determination “that the continuation of the limited public forum may
encourage vandalism in the Park, reduce the safety, serenity, and decorum of the Park,
unnecessarily burden City staff and law enforcement, and negatively impact the public’s health,
safety, and welfare.”
18. Meetings and participants constituting the internal decision-making about whether to close
the limited public forum
19. The removal of Joe
20. The preclusion of TST's display.
21. The councilmembers’ subjective motivations behind precluding the display.
22. As pertains to the Joe display / TST display controversy:
a. City’s communications with TST between January 1, 2017 and July 1, 2017
b. City’s communications with the Veteran's Group between January 1, 2017 and present
c. City’s communications with Father Brian Lynch between January 1, 2017 and present

d. City’s communications with Alliance Defending Freedom between January 1, 2017

and present.
23. Any community feedback about Joe
24. Any community feedback about TST's display

1202 NE McClain Rd
phone: (479) 431-6112
facsimile: (479) 282-2892

Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7

The Satanic Temple, Case No. -CV- (WMW/LIB)
Plaintiff,
DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY
v. REQUESTS TO PLAINTIFF
City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota,
Defendant.
TO: Plaintiff above-named and its counsel of record, Jason S. Juran and Robert R.
Hopper of Robert R. Hopper & Associates, LLC, South th Street, Suite
, Minneapolis, MN , robert.hopper@robertrhopper.com and
jason.juran@robertrhopper.com, and Matthew A. Kezhaya of Kezyaya Law
PLC, NE McClain Rd, Bentonville, AR , matt@kezhaya.law.
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , , and , Defendant City of
Belle Plaine, Minnesota, (“Defendant”) hereby requests that Plaintiff The Satanic
Temple (“Plaintiff”) provide full and complete responses to the following discovery
requests within thirty days after service.
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
For purposes of these discovery requests, the following definitions and
instructions shall apply:
. As used herein, the words “Plaintiff,” “you,” and “your” refer to The
Satanic Temple and all persons acting on its behalf including, but not limited to,
attorneys and their associates, investigators, agents, employees, representatives, or

others who are in possession of or who may have obtained information for or on
its behalf.
. As used herein, the term “City” means Defendant City of Belle Plaine,
Minnesota, including its City Council, Planning Commission, Planning
Department, zoning administrator, employees, and any other department in the
City.
. As used herein, the term “Permit Application” means the application
to the City dated February , that is described in paragraph of your
Complaint.
. As used herein, the term “Display” means the display described in the
Permit Application (a black steel cube with “embossed inverted pentagrams with
inlaid gold on four sides,” and an “inverted helmet” resting on the top of the cube).
. As used herein, the term “Permit” means the permit number LPF -
that the City issued, which was valid for one year, from March , to
March , , reflected in Exhibit to your Complaint.
. The word “identify” when used in reference to a natural person means
that you shall state the following information:
a. Full name;
b. Age;
c. Current or last known address and telephone number; and

d. Current or last known employer and position with employer.
. As used herein, the term “document” or “documents” is used in the
broadest sense as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and interpreted
by the courts. It includes, among other things, electronic data and drafts of
documents, as well as any and all originals (and copies of originals which are not
identical to the originals by reason of any notation made on such copies or
otherwise), copies of originals where originals are not available for production and
drafts of any or all of the following: correspondence, memoranda, notes, electronic
mail, text messages, instant messages, social media postings, voicemails, computer
records, diaries, statistics, letters, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies,
checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, prospectuses,
inter-office communications, telephone calls, meetings, communications, printed
matter, invoices, worksheets, transcripts and written materials of every kind and
nature whatsoever, and all tapes, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche,
microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures, and graphical or aural records
or representations of any kind and nature whatsoever, along with any electronic,
mechanical, or electric recordings or representations of every kind and nature
whatsoever.
. “Communication” means any conveyance of meaning or information
by any mode or medium, including but not limited to telephone, electronic mail,
correspondence, text messages, instant messages, social-media messages, and any
written or spoken language between two or more persons.
. “Identify” means (regardless of whether any claim of privilege is
asserted), with respect to a document, to either produce the document for
inspection and copying or to set forth the following information:
a. Its nature (e.g., letter, memoranda, report, etc.);
b. The date the document bears or, if undated, the date it was
written or created;
c. The identity of the author;
d. The identity of the recipient and all persons receiving copies of
the document;
e. Its file number or other identifying mark or code;
f. Its general subject matter; and
g. Its present or last known location and custodian.
. To bring within the scope of these requests any and all conceivably
relevant and responsive information that might otherwise be construed to be
outside their scope:
a. The singular of each word shall be construed to include its
plural and vice versa;

b. “And,” as well as “or,” shall be construed conjunctively, as well
as disjunctively;
c. “Each” shall be construed to include “every” and vice versa;
d. “Any” shall be construed to include “all” and vice versa;
e. The present tense shall be construed to include the past tense
and vice versa;
f. “Between” when used in the context of numbers or dates shall
be construed to be inclusive of such numbers or dates; and
g. “Concerning” means relating to, referring to, describing,
establishing, demonstrating, evidencing, or constituting.
. If any of the information or documents requested by Defendant are to
be withheld on the basis of any objection, including without limitation any
objections based upon the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, for
each such item of information and each such document, you are requested to
provide a detailed description of the documents and information not produced as
required by Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
. Defendant specifies that the form of production of electronically-
stored information in response to these requests is to be Bates-labeled, searchable
PDF files, or in another reasonably usable format but only by agreement of the
parties. Any Excel and PowerPoint files should be produced in native form. All
native files and original metadata shall be preserved for the duration of the
litigation.
. In responding to these discovery requests, Plaintiff must make a
diligent search for all responsive information and documents that are within her
possession, custody, or control. Information and documents are deemed to be in
the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff if: (a) they are in the possession,
custody, or control of Plaintiff (which, by definition, includes without limitation
her agents, attorneys, and other representatives); (b) they are in the possession,
custody, or control of any other person retained by or providing services to
Plaintiff; or (c) Plaintiff has the right or ability to secure the information or
document (or a copy of the document) from any individual or entity who has
possession, custody, or control of the information or document. All requests for
documents are for those documents that are in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or
control.
. If any document was, but no longer is, in Plaintiff’s possession,
custody, or control, state whether it is lost, missing, destroyed, transferred to
otherwise disposed of, and in each such instance, explain the circumstances
surrounding the disposition thereof and the date it occurred.

. If you object that an interrogatory is overly broad, burdensome, or
oppressive, please state facts or other evidence demonstrating the nature and
extent of the burden.
. Please take notice that objection will be made at the time of trial to
any attempts to introduce evidence which is sought by these requests as to which
no disclosure has been made.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify all locations of the Display from June
to the present.
INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify the custodian or custodians of the
Display from June to the present.
INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify all uses or exhibitions of the Display
from June to the present.
INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify any person from whom a statement,
whether written, oral, or recorded, has been taken by you or on your behalf
concerning the allegations in the Complaint and for each statement, state the
following:
(a) The speaker;
(b) The date the speaker issued the statement;
(c) The person to whom the speaker issued the statement;
(d) How the Plaintiff learned of the statement; and

(e) Any witnesses to the statement.
INTERROGATORY NO. : State the name, address, and telephone
number of each person known to you whom you believe has knowledge of any fact
relating to the allegations in your Complaint, and for each such person set forth
your understanding of the facts known by the person.
INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe in detail the design and construction
process of the Display, including the date that construction of the Display began
and the date that construction of the Display was completed.
INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe in detail the relationship between
Reason Alliance, Ltd. and Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe in detail Plaintiff’s and Reason
Alliance, Ltd.’s involvement with the Display.
INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe in detail all fund-raising activities of
Plaintiff or Reason Alliance, Ltd., relating to the Display.
INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe in detail all promotional activities of
Plaintiff or Reason Alliance, Ltd., relating to the Display.
INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify: (a) the complete nature of all damages
Plaintiff seeks from the City in this lawsuit; (b) the precise dollar amount which
Plaintiff seeks as compensation for all such damages (including any compensation
that Plaintiff seeks as reimbursement for interest, costs, disbursements, or
attorney fees to which Plaintiff claims an entitlement); (c) a detailed explanation

and accounting of how Plaintiff calculated the precise dollar amount to which she
claims an entitlement; (d) a detailed explanation of how the damages are claimed
to have been caused by the City’s alleged conduct; and (e) the full name and
address of all individuals who are said to have knowledge of facts or documents
relating in any way to all such damages or the calculation of damages.
INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe in detail what Plaintiff planned to do
with the Display after the one-year Permit from the City expired on March ,
, and the Display under the Permit had to be removed and could no longer be
exhibited in Veterans Memorial Park.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
The City requests and demands that Plaintiff produce for inspection and
copying at the offices of Greene Espel PLLP, South Ninth Street, Suite ,
Minneapolis, MN , the following:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All documents that you reviewed,
identified or relied upon in response to any of the City’s interrogatories.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All communications you have sent
to or received from the City at any time from to the present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All documents that you have
collected from any non-party related to your allegations in the Complaint.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All non-privileged documents that
constitute, describe, reflect, or relate in any way to communications between
Plaintiff and any non-party related to your allegations in the Complaint, including
but not limited to communications between Plaintiff and Reason Alliance, Ltd.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All recordings of interactions you
have had with the City, or any other person concerning your allegations in the
Complaint.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All internal communications of
Plaintiff or Reason Alliance, Ltd. relating in any way to Belle Plaine, Minnesota
from to the present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All internal communications of
Plaintiff or Reason Alliance, Ltd. relating in any way to the Display from to
the present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All photos or images of the Display
from June to the present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All documents that discuss or
relate in any way to Belle Plaine, Minnesota.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All documents that constitute,
describe, reflect, or relate in any way to your Permit Application.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All documents that support,
explain, describe, or in any other way relate to or pertain to any and all damages
that you seek and/or claim in this action.
describe, reflect, refer to, or relate in any way to the certificate of liability
insurance referenced in paragraph of your Complaint.
describe, reflect, refer to, or relate in any way to insurance coverage related to the
Display.
describe, reflect, refer to, or relate in any way to all communications between Ron
Murray, Murray Insurance Services, and the insured Reason Alliance, Ltd.
describe, reflect, refer to, or relate in any way to all communications between Ron
Murray, Murray Insurance Services, and Plaintiff.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All communications or other
documents that describe, reflect, refer to, or relate in any way to the design or
construction of the Display.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All communications with the
artist(s) or vendor(s) that designed or constructed the Display, including but not
limited to Chris Pandres and Adam Volpe of Pretty Hate Machining.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All invoices from the artist(s) or
vendor(s) for design or construction of the Display, and documents reflecting
payment on the invoices.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All documents that describe,
reflect or relate in any way to funds raised in connection with or related to the
Display.
reflect or relate in any way to promotional activities in connection with or related
to the Display.
reflect or relate in any way to merchandise sales in connection with or related to
the Display.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All communications and
documents that describe, reflect or relate in any way to storage, transport, use,
exhibition, or maintenance of the Display.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All documents identified in your
initial disclosures or Complaint related to the Display.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. : All statements made by parties
and non-parties concerning this litigation or its subject matter.
Dated: August , . GREENE ESPEL PLLP
s/Monte A. Mills
Monte A. Mills, Reg. No. X
Samuel J. Clark, Reg. No.
S. Ninth Street, Suite
Minneapolis, MN
sclark@greeneespel.com
( ) -
Attorneys for Defendant

Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11

Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 5:14 PM
Cc: jason.juran@roberthopper.com; Susann M. Holenko; Kathleen A. Dolphin
Subject: Re: The Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine [GE-R7Z3UVVA5NW4-177010129-22]
Attachments: 2020 11 24 30(b)(6).pdf; 2020 11 24 wrap up letter.pdf
Matthew A. Kezhaya

Arkansas office:
Kezhaya Law PLC
1202 NE McClain Rd
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

Kezhaya Law PLC
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

this message.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:25 PM Susann M. Holenko <SHolenko@greeneespel.com> wrote:
Please see the attached letter sent on behalf of Monte Mills. Thank you.

Susann M. Holenko
612.373.8386 phone
sholenko@greeneespel.com
612.373.0830 phone 612.373.0929 fax www.greeneespel.com
1

IMPORTANT: This electronic message contains information from Greene Espel PLLP or its attorneys that is
presumptively confidential and, if sent to clients or co-counsel, may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
The unauthorized use, distribution, or re-transmission of any part of this message by an unintended recipient is strictly
prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender
immediately and delete all copies.

2
Exhibit 12
From: Samuel J. Clark

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 1:44 PM
To: Matthew A. Kezhaya; Kathleen A. Dolphin
Cc: Monte A. Mills; Joyce A. Kammueller; Jason Juran
Subject: RE: TST v. Belle Plaine -- City's 30(b)(6) deposition scheduling information
Dear Matt,

Thank you for the email. We have filed a motion for a protective order that addresses the 30(b)(6) deposition along with
other deposition issues that remain unresolved following unsuccessful efforts to reach agreement.

As discussed during our November 10 meet and confer and in earlier communications from my colleague Monte Mills,
the matters for examination that you have listed for a 30(b)(6) deposition of the City are far beyond the scope of the
issues remaining in this case. Monte’s November 9 letter to you laid out the City’s position, including the City’s
willingness at that time to “proceed with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the City of Belle Plaine sometime the week of
November 30 – December 4 if Plaintiff properly narrows the scope of matters for examination.” To date, you have not
done so. We have therefore determined that we need the Court’s assistance in resolving these issues.

Additionally, I note that your updated 30(b)(6) deposition notice—sent with one business day remaining before the
Thanksgiving holiday weekend—left the City with an unreasonable amount of notice to prepare for such a deposition.

In sum, the City is unwilling to move forward with a 30(b)(6) deposition given the timing and scope of your notice. We
have determined that we need to seek a protective order.

Sincerely,

Sam Clark
612.373.8372 phone
sclark@greeneespel.com

612.373.0830 phone 612.373.0929 fax www.greeneespel.com
IMPORTANT: This electronic message contains information from Greene Espel PLLP or its attorneys that is
presumptively confidential and, if sent to clients or co-counsel, may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
The unauthorized use, distribution, or re-transmission of any part of this message by an unintended recipient is strictly
prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender
immediately and delete all copies.

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 11:03 AM
To: Kathleen A. Dolphin <KDolphin@greeneespel.com>
Cc: Monte A. Mills <MMills@greeneespel.com>; Samuel J. Clark <SClark@greeneespel.com>; Joyce A. Kammueller
<JKammueller@greeneespel.com>; Jason Juran <jason.juran@robertrhopper.com>
Subject: TST v. Belle Plaine ‐‐ City's 30(b)(6) deposition scheduling information

Please see below for the teleconference details on the City's 30(b)(6) deposition for tomorrow
morning:
1

From: Esquire Scheduling, Chicago <CHICAGOSCHEDULING@ESQUIRESOLUTIONS.COM>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 10:43 AM
To: Kristina Schultz <kristina.schultz@robertrhopper.com>
Cc: DoNotReply@esquiresolutions.com <DoNotReply@esquiresolutions.com>
Subject: Here are your final confirmation details. Witness: 30(b)(6) of The City of Belle Plaine, MN Date: 12/1/2020
(J6285122)
Thank you for confirming your service request for the Deposition scheduled for 12/1/2020 at
09:00 AM Central.
Since this proceeding is less than one business day and has been confirmed, any changes, including
cancellation or postponements, must be made by phone. Please call us at 312-782-8087 and refer
to Esquire Job Number J6285122.
If your court reporter is attending remotely, and you have exhibits to submit into evidence, either a
URL link or an Upload email address to send the electronic files will be provided below:
Exhibit Upload URL link: Or Exhibit Upload Email:
Please use a separate file for each exhibit and name the files with the exhibit numbers.
If you need assistance during a remote proceeding, please contact the Conferencing
Support Team:
CONFERENCING SUPPORT TEAM

Call: 800-211-3376
(Ask For: Ext. 11170 or Select Option #2 to be connected and reference J6285122.)
Esquire Job
J6285122
Number:
Case: THE SATANIC TEMPLE V. CITY OF BELLE PLAINE
Witness(es): 30(b)(6) of The City of Belle Plaine, MN
urt Folder Number: 19-CV-01122 (WMW/LIB)
Firm File/Matter #:
Date and Time: 12/1/2020 09:00 AM Central
Remote Proceeding ***

All parties appearing remotely
Location:
Service partner(s) appearing remotely
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55391
Juran, Jason
Setting Attorney:
Robert R Hopper & Associates - Minneapolis
cheduling Contact: Schultz, Kristina M
Additional Notes:
2
vices Requested:
Yes
Court Reporter:
Attending Remotely (not with the Witness)
Rough Draft ASCII: No
Realtime: No
Streaming Video: No
Interpreter:
No
Language:
Interpreter Prep
Time:
Streaming Text: No
Videographer: No
Remote Technician No
xpedited Delivery:
onferencing Type: Videoconference Attendees
Conferencing
Zoom
Provider:
eoconference URL: https://esquiresolutions.zoom.us/j/93890132016?pwd=MGY5SkpKZDRMVWZhd3RzYUpCMklxQ
93890132016
Meeting ID:
6285122
Password:

leconference Info: +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 558 8656 US Toll

800.211.DEPO (3376)
Esquire Deposition Solutions
CANCELLATIONS: Please be advised that fees will apply if canceled after 5:00 PM the business day prior
to your proceeding date. Additional notice may be required for external conference rooms booked by
Esquire.
 PROCEEDINGS IN AN ESQUIRE OFFICE canceled after 5:00 p.m. the prior business day will
incur a conference room-specific late-cancellation fee.
 INTERPRETERS or VIDEOCONFERENCE cancellations require a minimum of 24 hour business
day notice prior to the start time to avoid a cancellation fee.
Please contact your Esquire representative for specifics.

Please contact your Esquire representative for specifics.
Manage your Esquire calendar: Review your calendar, schedule, and make changes in your
EsquireConnect Client Portal account: www.esquireconnect.com. If you need a password, send a
message to clientcare@esquiresolutions.com. To learn more, go here. Or, contact us directly via
email or phone.
Matthew A. Kezhaya

Arkansas office:
3
Kezhaya Law PLC

1202 NE McClain Rd
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

Kezhaya Law PLC
p: (479) 431-6112
f: (479) 282-2892
e: matt@kezhaya.law

this message.
4
Exhibit 13
Monte A. Mills
612-373-8363 direct
October 23, 2020
VIA E-MAIL


Dear Counsel:
I write regarding deficiencies in The Satanic Temple’s (“TST” or “Plaintiff”) responses to the
City of Belle Plaine’s (“City” or “Defendant”) first set of discovery requests. The City is eager to
resolve these issues promptly and asks that all deficiencies be cured by service of supplemental
answers, responses and documents on or before Wednesday, November 4, 2020.
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s use of general objections—to both the Interrogatories

and the Requests for Production—is improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This
deficiency applies to the enumerated list of “General Objections” set forth at pages 1-2 of
Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and to Plaintiff’s
use of boilerplate general objections at the start of each of answer or response to specific
interrogatories and requests for production. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(b)(4) (as to interrogatories) and
34(b)(2)(B) (as to document requests) require that objections to discovery requests be stated with
specificity (see, e.g., Interrogatory Nos. 3-4); and Document Request Nos. 3-7, 9, 14, 15, 20-22 and
24). And further, Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 34(b)(2)(C) directs that objections in response to document
requests must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of such
objections (see, e.g., Document Request Nos. 3-7, 9, 14, 15, 20-22 and 24). Please confirm that
nothing has been withheld on the basis of these improper general objections.
In addition, Plaintiff objects to the City’s interrogatories and document requests to the
extent they seek information and documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or other applicable privileges or immunities. But we
have not received any privilege log from you. Please confirm that all documents and information
withheld pursuant to these objections will be included on your privilege log and provide the log.
Jason S. Juran
Matthew A. Kezhaya
October 23, 2020
Page 2
Specific Responses and Objections to the Interrogatory Answers
1. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 5 to the extent the requested information may
become the subject of a protective order. Please indicate whether there are additional
persons with knowledge whose names have been withheld pursuant to this objection
and if so, supplement your answer with an appropriate confidentiality designation. 1
The parties do not have any protective order on file with the Court. Plaintiff already
filed documents with the Court—including the Exhibits to the Complaint—that identify
the name Douglas Mesner as associated with The Satanic Temple. Those documents
are and have been publicly available since April 25, 2019.
Plaintiff’s answer to this interrogatory is also deficient in that Plaintiff fails to include
the requested address, telephone number and the current or last known
employer/position of each person identified therein, and also whether any such person
should be contacted through TST’s counsel. Please supplement your answer to this
interrogatory to include this additional information.
2. Plaintiff’s answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is deficient in that it fails to describe in any

detail the process for the design and construction of the Display, stating only who was
responsible for each phase. For example, what was the genesis of the Display, who was
involved in the idea for its inception, and when? Who is Spectrum Films, Inc.? How was
the design determined and recorded? How long was each phase involving design and
construction? Please supplement your answer to this interrogatory to provide the
detail requested.
3. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 10 as “wholly irrelevant to the claims set forth in
this litigation.” Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory as vague, specifically as to
what constitutes “promotional activities,”2 and not properly limited as to time. The City
disagrees. Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. The information sought by this
interrogatory goes directly to whether Plaintiff mitigated its damages by exploring any
interest in the Display by persons or entities not affiliated with TST, or whether Plaintiff
tried to publish the Display in any way other than in the City. As to time, Plaintiff has a
1
The City reserves all rights to challenge the confidentiality of any additional information
disclosed in response to Interrogatory No. 5.
2
To be clear, the phrase “promotional activities” should be construed with its ordinary
meaning. “Promotion[al]” is defined as “the act of furthering the growth or development of
something. . . through advertising, publicity, or discounting.” https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/promotional.
Jason S. Juran
Matthew A. Kezhaya
October 23, 2020
Page 3
duty to supplement its answer with any promotional activities concerning the Display
that are otherwise unrelated to the allegations in its Complaint.
4. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 11(e) to the extent the requested information may
become the subject of a protective order. Again, no protective order exists. Please
indicate whether there are additional persons with knowledge whose names have been
withheld pursuant to this objection and if so, supplement your answer with an
appropriate confidentiality designation.3
Specific Responses and Objections to Document Requests
5. Plaintiff objects to Document Request No. 3 to the extent the requested information
constitutes attorney work product. Please confirm that no responsive documents have
been withheld pursuant to this objection, or include the relevant information on your
privilege log.
6. Plaintiff objects to Document Request No. 8 as unduly burdensome and asserts that
“[t]here are an unknowable number of photographs that may have included the statute
[sic].” Plaintiff is required to use its best efforts to produce all responsive documents
in its possession, custody or control, including, but not limited to, photographs linked
or otherwise embedded in the documents produced by Plaintiff to date.4 First, please
confirm that all responsive photographs have been produced, including, but not
limited to, those uploaded to the imgur.com website. Second, to the extent Plaintiff
intends to rely upon any such email communication or photograph at trial, please re-
produce the responsive emails with the relevant (i.e., linked) photographs as
attachments so the documents are properly unitized and preserved. The City will object
to the use of any incomplete documents at trial.
7. Plaintiff objects to Document Request No. 10 to the extent the City is already in
possession of such documents and agrees to produce documents “to the extent
Plaintiff has any other responsive documents in its possession.” In addition to the
Permit Application itself, the City notes that this request seeks “[a]ll documents that. .
.describe, reflect, or relate in any way to your Permit Application,” including emails and
other communications concerning the application (emphasis added). Such documents
3
Again, the City reserves all rights to challenge the confidentiality of any additional
information disclosed in response to Interrogatory No. 11(e).
4
See, for example, an email dated May 29, 2017 from Adam Volpe to Ash Astaroth, containing
not less than six links to photographs uploaded to http://i.imgur.com.
Jason S. Juran
Matthew A. Kezhaya
October 23, 2020
Page 4
are clearly not in the possession of the City. Please confirm that no documents have
been withheld subject to this objection or supplement your document production
accordingly.
8. Some of the documents produced by Plaintiff bear inappropriate redactions. 5 To the

extent the redactions were made to protect the disclosure of privileged information,
please include them on your privilege log. Redactions made for any other purpose are
inappropriate, especially where no protective order exists that authorizes the
protection of non-privileged information. Again, the City reminds Plaintiff that it filed
a publicly available Complaint and Exhibits, which identify the name Douglas Mesner
as associated with The Satanic Temple.
9. Plaintiff has produced approximately 130 pages of combined email communications.

Many of these emails contain language that states, “[q]uoted text hidden.” We have
determined that such language is indicative of prior email communications on the
same string having been suppressed by settings applied in the gmail.com email
program, thus rendering those particular emails as incomplete documents. Please re-
produce the responsive emails in their entirety so the documents are complete and
properly preserved. The City will object to the use at trial of any incomplete documents.
10. Plaintiff has produced one email with the “info@thesatanictemple.com” address and
no emails with any other “@thesatanictemple.com” address. Please confirm that no
other responsive emails exist or produce the responsive emails.
11. Plaintiff failed to endorse its document production with Bates numbers, or indeed, any
identification whatsoever showing the origin of the document. The City asks that
Plaintiff endorse its original production, as well as any supplemental productions, so
that documents may be properly attributed to their producing party and tracked
accordingly (including so that Bates numbers may be provided for any document
bearing redactions that will appear on your privilege log, as discussed above).
Please let us know as soon as possible if Plaintiff is unwilling to provide any of the
requested supplementation. If we are unable to resolve these disputes, the City will take steps
necessary to protect its rights, up to and including a motion to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with
its discovery obligations.
5
See, for example, an invoice dated April 2, 2017, and many email communications produced
by Plaintiff.
Jason S. Juran
Matthew A. Kezhaya
October 23, 2020
Page 5
Finally, the City would like to schedule the depositions of Malcolm Jarry, Douglas Mesner,
Lucien Greaves, Ash Astaroth, and Alex Medlin, as well as a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of TST, to
occur in November. Please provide November dates that work for you and your witnesses and we
will serve the deposition notices accordingly. We would appreciate hearing from you by
October 30 with available November dates. As a reminder, the Court’s scheduling order sets the
discovery deadline at December 4, 2020.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Monte A. Mills
Monte A. Mills
MM/jak
cc: Samuel J. Clark
Exhibit 14
Monte A. Mills
612-373-8363 direct
November 2, 2020
VIA E-MAIL


Dear Counsel:
I write regarding The Satanic Temple’s (“TST” or “Plaintiff”) response to the City of Belle
Plaine’s October 23 letter requesting dates for scheduling the depositions of Malcolm Jarry,
Douglas Mesner, Lucien Greaves, Ash Astaroth, and Alex Medlin, as well as a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition of TST. You responded with no dates in November or otherwise for those depositions.
Instead, you merely stated that you are attempting to coordinate available dates in November for
Alex Medlin’s deposition and Lucien Greaves as Plaintiff’s 30(b)(6) deponent.
Besides the failure to offer any specific deposition dates, your response included other
significant defects. First, you said Plaintiff objects to producing Malcolm Jarry as a witness without
stating any legal basis for refusing a deposition. Second, you failed to mention Douglas Mesner
at all. Third, you said Plaintiff objects to producing Lucien Greaves as a witness without stating
any legal basis for refusing a deposition. Plaintiff’s meritless objections and silence are insufficient
to prevent the depositions of Malcolm Jarry, Douglas Mesner, and Lucien Greaves. Please propose
available dates.
With respect to logistics, we think under the pandemic circumstances it would be best to
stipulate to depositions by remote technology such as Zoom or an equivalent. Please let us know
if you agree.
The City wants to resolve these issues immediately and asks for a response on or before
Wednesday, November 4, 2020. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Monte A. Mills
Monte A. Mills
MM/jak
cc: Samuel J. Clark
Exhibit 15

The Satanic Temple, Case No. 19-CV-01122 (WMW/LIB)
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
v. DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO
DEFENDANT
City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota,
Defendant.
TO: Defendant above-named and its counsel of record, Monte A. Mills and Samuel
J. Clark of Greene Espel Pllp, 222 S. Ninth Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402,
mmills@greeneespel.com, sclark@greeneespel.com
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33, and 34, Plaintiff The Satanic Temple
(“Plaintiff”) hereby requests that Defendant City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota, (“Defendant” or
“City”) provide full and complete responses to the following discovery requests within thirty
days after service.
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
For purposes of these discovery requests, the following definitions and instructions
shall apply:
1. As used herein, the words “Defendant,” “you,” and “your” refer to the
City of Belle Plaine and all persons acting on its behalf including, but not limited to,
attorneys and their associates, investigators, agents, employees, representatives, or others
who are in possession of or who may have obtained information for or on its behalf.
2. As used herein, the term “City” means Defendant City of Belle Plaine,
Minnesota, all agents speaking for the city in the course and scope of their agency, and
all composite subgroups of the City of Belle Plaine, including without limitation the City
Council, the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, the zoning administrator,
any employees, and any other department in the City.
3. As used herein, the term “Permit Application” means the application to the
City dated February 23, 2017 that is described in paragraph 29 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
4. As used herein, the term “Park” means the Veterans Memorial Park in Belle Plaine,
Minnesota.
5. As used herein, the term “Display” means the display described in the Permit
Application (a black steel cube with “embossed inverted pentagrams with inlaid gold on four
sides,” and an “inverted helmet” resting on the top of the cube), which is the subject of the
present lawsuit.
6. As used herein, the term “Permit” means the permit number LPF 17- 02 that
the City issued, which was valid for one year, from March 29, 2017 to March 29, 2018,
reflected in Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
7. The word “identify” when used in reference to a natural person means that
you shall state the following information:
a. Full name;
b. Age;
c. Current or last known address and telephone number; and
2
d. Current or last known employer and position with employer.
8. As used herein, the term “document” or “documents” is used in the broadest
sense as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and interpreted by the courts. It
includes, among other things, electronic data and drafts of documents, as well as any and
all originals (and copies of originals which are not identical to the originals by reason of
any notation made on such copies or otherwise), copies of originals where originals are
not available for production and drafts of any or all of the following: correspondence,
memoranda, notes, electronic mail, text messages, instant messages, social media postings,
voicemails, computer records, diaries, statistics, letters, telegrams, minutes, contracts,
reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books,
prospectuses, inter-office communications, telephone calls, meetings, communications,
printed matter, invoices, worksheets, transcripts and written materials of every kind and
nature whatsoever, and all tapes, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm,
videotape, recordings, motion pictures, and graphical or aural records or representations
of any kind and nature whatsoever, along with any electronic, mechanical, or electric
recordings or representations of every kind and nature whatsoever.
9. “Communication” means any conveyance of meaning or information by
any mode or medium, including but not limited to telephone, electronic mail
correspondence, text messages, instant messages, social-media messages, and any written
or spoken language between two or more persons.
10. “Identify” means (regardless of whether any claim of privilege is asserted),
with respect to a document, to either produce the document for inspection and copying or
to set forth the following information:
a. Its nature (e.g., letter, memoranda, report, etc.);

3
b. The date the document bears or, if undated, the date it was written or
created;
c. The identity of the author;
d. The identity of the recipient and all persons receiving copies of the
document;
e. Its file number or other identifying mark or code;
f. Its general subject matter; and,
g. Its present or last known location and custodian.
11. To bring within the scope of these requests any and all conceivably relevant
and responsive information that might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope:
a. The singular of each word shall be construed to include its plural and
vice versa;
b. “And,” as well as “or,” shall be construed conjunctively, as well as
disjunctively;
c. “Each” shall be construed to include “every” and vice versa;
d. “Any” shall be construed to include “all” and vice versa;
e. The present tense shall be construed to include the past tense and
vice versa;
f. “Between” when used in the context of numbers or dates shall be
construed to be inclusive of such numbers or dates; and
g. “Concerning” means relating to, referring to, describing,
establishing, demonstrating, evidencing, or constituting.
12. “Joe” means the statue depicting a kneeling soldier before a Christian cross, known
4
locally as “Joe”, which was erected by the Belle Plaine Veterans Club and placed in the Park.
13. If any of the information or documents requested by Plaintiff are to be withheld on
the basis of any objection, including without limitation any objections based upon the attorney-
client privilege or work product doctrine, for each such item of information and each such
document, you are requested to provide a detailed description of the documents and information
not produced as required by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
14. Plaintiff specifies that the form of production of electronically- stored information
in response to these requests is to be Bates-labeled, searchable PDF files, or in another reasonably
usable format but only by agreement of the parties. Any Excel and PowerPoint files should be
produced in native form. All native files and original metadata shall be preserved for the duration
of the litigation.
15. In responding to these discovery requests, Defendant must make a diligent
search for all responsive information and documents that are within its possession,
custody, or control. Information and documents are deemed to be in the possession,
custody, or control of Defendant if: (a) they are in the possession, custody, or control of
Defendant (which, by definition, includes without limitation her agents, attorneys, and
other representatives); (b) they are in the possession, custody, or control of any other
person retained by or providing services to Defendant; or (c) Defendant has the right or
ability to secure the information or document (or a copy of the document) from any
individual or entity who has possession, custody, or control of the information or
document. All requests for documents are for those documents that are in Defendant’s
possession, custody, or control.
16. If any document was, but no longer is, in Defendant’s possession, custody, or
5
control, state whether it is lost, missing, destroyed, transferred to otherwise disposed of,
and in each such instance, explain the circumstances surrounding the disposition thereof
and the date it occurred.
17. If you object that an interrogatory is overly broad, burdensome, or
oppressive, please state facts or other evidence demonstrating the nature and extent of the
burden.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all displays that have ever been placed in the Park (i.e.
including Joe). For each display, state the following:
a. The date the display was installed.
b. A description of the display.
c. The individual or group who proposed the placement of the display.
d. Who paid for the display.
e. If the display has been removed, the date the display was removed.
f. If the display has been removed, why the display was removed.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all displays that have ever been excluded from the Park (i.e.
including TST’s). For each display, state the following:
a. The date the display was proposed.
b. The individual or group who proposed the placement of the display.
c. The date the display was rejected.
d. Why the display was rejected.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify all persons involved in any way with the City’s
decision to pass Resolution 17-020.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify all persons involved in any way with the City’s
6
decision to pass Resolution 17-090.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify why and how the City “determined that allowing
privately-owned memorials or displays in its Park no longer meets the intent or purpose of the
Park,” in passing Resolution 17-090.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify any person from whom a statement, whether written, oral,
or recorded, has been taken by you or on your behalf concerning the allegations in Plaintiff’s
Complaint or Defendant’s Answer, and for each statement, state the following:
a. The speaker;
b. The date the speaker issued the statement;
c. The person to whom the speaker issued the statement;
d. How the Defendant learned of the statement; and
e. Any witnesses to the statement.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: State the name, address, and telephone number of each person
known to you whom you believe has knowledge of any fact relating to the allegations in
Plaintiff’s Complaint or Defendant’s Answer, and for each such person set forth your
understanding of the facts known by the person.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe in detail any communications concerning the
controversy surrounding the Veteran’s Memorial Park from, including but not limited to:
a. any communications with or from any person concerning Plaintiff’s permit; and,
b. transcripts of any hearings or meetings held by the City Council concerning Resolution
17-020 and Resolution 17-090.
c. Recordings of any hearings or meetings held by the City Council concerning Resolution
17-020 and Resolution 17-090.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Describe in detail why and how the City “determined that the
7
continuation of the limited public forum may encourage vandalism in the Park, reduce the
safety, serenity, and decorum of the Park, unnecessarily burden City staff and law
enforcement, and negatively impact the public’s health, safety and welfare,” in passing
Resolution 17-090.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe in detail the City’s determination to approve Plaintiff’s
Permit Application for the Display.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Describe in detail the process the City followed to determine “that
the continuation of the limited public forum may encourage vandalism in the Park, reduce the
safety, serenity, and decorum of the Park, unnecessarily burden City staff and law
enforcement, and negatively impact the public’s health, safety and welfare,” in passing
Resolution 17-090.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Describe in detail why and how the City found “that allowing
privately-owned memorials or displays in its Park no longer meets the intent or purpose of the
Park,” in passing Resolution 17-090.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify all documents in Defendant’s possession concerning the
Display from February 2017 to the present.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify all communications Defendant has had concerning the
Display from February 2017 to the present.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
The Plaintiff requests and demands that the City produce for inspection and copying
at the offices of Robert R. Hopper and Associates, LLC, 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2450,
Minneapolis, MN 55402, the following:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce a map of the Park which depicts the placement or
8
location of any displays.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All documents that Defendant reviewed, identified or
relied upon in response to any of Plaintiff’s Interrogatories.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All communications Defendant sent to or received
from the Plaintiff from August 1, 2016, to the present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents that you have collected from any non-
party related to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint or Defendant’s Answer.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All non-privileged documents that constitute,
describe, reflect, or relate in any way to communications between Defendant and any non-
party related to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Defendant’s Answer,
including but not limited to communications from or sent to the City Council, Planning
Commission, Planning Department, zoning administrator, employees, and any other
department in the City. The foregoing includes without limitation all recordings of
interactions the City has had with any nonparty concerning the allegations in Plaintiff’s
Complaint or Defendant’s Answer.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All internal communications of the City relating in any
way to the Display from January 1, 2017 to the present. “Internal communications” includes
without limitation transcripts of any City Council meetings addressing the Display; audio or video
recordings of any City Council meetings addressing the Permit; meeting minutes for any City
Council meetings addressing the Permit.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All photos or images of the location where the Display
was to be placed from June 2017 to the present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All documents in Defendant’s possession, which
9
discuss or relate in any way to Plaintiff or its members. Without limiting the breadth of
this request, Plaintiff particularly seeks Defendant’s copies of Plaintiff’s Permit
Application, communications surrounding it, and any collateral statements about Plaintiff
or its membership.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All documents that constitute, describe, reflect, or relate
in any way to applications for any other display that has been installed, removed, or rejected
in the Park (i.e. including Joe).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All documents that support, explain, describe, or in
any other way relate to or pertain to fees that Plaintiff paid to the City to obtain the Permit.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All documents that describe, reflect or relate in any
way to the City’s determinations in Resolutions 17-020 or 17-090. Without limiting the
breadth of this request, Plaintiff particularly seeks any documentation surrounding the
procedures followed in creating these resolutions, transcripts of any meetings discussing,
formulating, or adopting these resolutions, audio or video recordings of any meetings
discussing, formulating, or adopting these resolutions, any written communications
discussing, formulating, or adopting these resolutions, and any drafts of the resolutions.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: All documents identified in your initial disclosures or
Answer related to the Display.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Any written communications between any agent of the
Defendant and Andy Parrish, or any other member of the Veteran’s Group, between August
1, 2016 to present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Produce the transcript of the closed session meeting
referenced in the February 6, 2017 city council meeting regarding whether to take Joe down.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NUMBER 15: Produce any legal memoranda, notes, emails, or any
10
other written document evidencing a communication between any member of the City Council and
the City Attorney pertaining to any display or any expected display in the Park between August 1,
2016 and July 30, 2017 (i.e. including but not limited to Joe and the Display).
Dated: October 15, 2020
ROBERT R. HOPPER AND ASSOCIATES LLC
/s/Jason S. Juran
Jason S. Juran, Esq. (MN # 397935)
Robert R. Hopper, Esq. (MN # 208760)
333 S. Seventh Street, Suite 2450
P: (612) 455-2199
F: (612) 455-1689
E: jasonjuran@robertrhopper.com
E: robert.hopper@robertrhopper.com
KEZHAYA LAW, PLC
/s/ Matthew A. Kezhaya

Matthew A. Kezhaya, Esq. (AR # 2014161)
Kezhaya Law PLC
1202 NE McClain Road
P: (479) 431-6112
F: (479) 282-2892
E: matt@kezhaya.law
11
Exhibit 16
Monte A. Mills
612-373-8363 direct
November 10, 2020
VIA E-MAIL

Re: The Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine

Dear Counsel:
I write in response to the “good faith” letter that Matthew Kezhaya emailed on behalf of
The Satanic Temple (“TST” or “Plaintiff”) on Monday, November 9, 2020, at 3:43 PM. Before
sending the “good faith” letter, Mr. Kezhaya left a series of voicemails for us around 3:20 PM on
November 9. I’ll repeat a point from my prior correspondence: please understand that you are not
entitled to a response to an email or voicemail within four or five hours, much less 20 or 30
minutes. We have other work to do and cannot be immediately available anytime you want to talk
to us.
The inconsistencies and contradictions in your written correspondence to date make a

telephone conference seem counterproductive. See, e.g., our November 9 letter to you. Under the
circumstances, and for the sake of a clear record, we think that the parties’ positions are best set
forth in writing.
Your “good faith” letter claims for the first time that a subpoena is needed for a deposition
of Alex Medlin. You have been on notice of the City’s interest in deposing Alex Medlin since
October 23, and have corresponded about it on multiple prior occasions, yet your November 9
letter is the first time you raised a subpoena question. Worse, your November 4 letter admitted
that Lucien Greaves, Malcolm Jarry, and Alex Medlin are “constituents” of TST. The term
"constituent" is defined in Comment 1 to Rule 1.13: “Officers, directors, employees, and
shareholders are the constituents of the corporate organizational client.” Your November 9 letter
contradicts your November 4 letter. The City served the deposition notices under Rule 30, not
Rule 45. It is not necessary to serve a subpoena on a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, Adv. Comm. Notes,
2013 Amt. (“Depositions of parties, and officers, directors, and managing agents of parties need
not involve use of a subpoena.”). A subpoena of TST’s “constituent” Alex Medlin is unnecessary.
Your “good faith” letter states that (a) the depositions of TST’s witnesses “all start at 9:00
am CST;” (b) “they are answering the questions in Eastern Time;” and (c) “this is a problem because
it is unreasonably early for their time zone.” In fact, Eastern Standard Time is one hour ahead of
Central Standard Time. Starting the deposition at 10:00 AM EST/9:00 AM CST is not “unreasonably
Jason S. Juran
Matthew A. Kezhaya
November 10, 2020
Page 2
early.” Indeed, it is later in the morning in the Eastern Time Zone than it is in the Central Time
Zone.
Your “good faith” letter states that the City’s deposition notices “are deficient for failure to
state the place of deposition.” But the parties previously stipulated to depositions by remote
means under Rule 30. The City’s notices properly state that, due to the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic, the depositions “will occur via a videoconference platform.” The notices are proper
under Rule 30.
Your “good faith” letter says that if Mayor Meyer and Councilmember Coop fail to attend
depositions without a preexisting protective order, you will move for contempt. We interpret this
to mean that the same would apply to the depositions of Lucien Greaves (November 20), Malcolm
Jarry (November 23), Alex Medlin (November 24), and the Rule 30(B)(6) of TST (November 30).
Your “good faith” letter says that “councilmembers’ subjective motivations in enacting
Resolution 17-090” are relevant to the promissory-estoppel claim. But the Court already resolved
this issue in the City’s favor, recognizing that “courts consider the nature of the act, not the motive
or intent of the official performing the act.” Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, --- F. Supp. 3d -
--, 2020 WL 4382756 (D. Minn. July 31, 2020). A city council’s act of passing an ordinance, adopting
a resolution, and passing a second ordinance, and the mayor’s act of signing the ordinance into
law, are legislative. Id. The Court “must consider only the nature of the act after stripping it of ‘all
considerations of intent and motive.’” Id. (quoting Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54 (1998)).
Minnesota law precludes inquiries into the legislators’ subjective intent. Legislative bodies are not
required to articulate reasons for enacting an ordinance. Arcadia Dev. Corp. v. City of Bloomington,
552 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (rejecting argument that trial was needed “on precisely what
the City meant in the preamble of the ordinance”). Statements by individual council members do
not reflect the intent of the whole city council. Queen City Const., Inc. v. City of Rochester, 604
N.W.2d 368, 377 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that statements by individual council members
“would not be evidence of the intent of the Common Council as a whole”).
We have requested that you withdraw the notices of depositions for the Mayor,
Councilmembers, and City Attorney. We stand by the reasoning underlying those requests. If you
fail to withdraw them, we unfortunately will be forced to bring the issues to the Court’s attention.
We would prefer avoiding burdening the Court’s time. Please withdraw the notices of depositions.
We observe that we responded to your November 4 request to extend the deadlines in

this case in our November 9 letter. Our response time within three business days is reasonable.
To be clear, the City will not stipulate to an extension of the scheduling order. On July 31, the
Court dismissed all Plaintiff’s claims except the promissory-estoppel claim against the City. Satanic
Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 4382756 (D. Minn. July 31, 2020). You
have been on notice since July 31 that Plaintiff has just one claim remaining in this case. Also, you
have been on notice since Mr. Juran filed his notice of appearance on February 19 that discovery
closes on December 4. Over four months to complete discovery for one claim is adequate and
Jason S. Juran
Matthew A. Kezhaya
November 10, 2020
Page 3
proportional in light of the claim’s nature. You have provided no reasons why the time allotted is
insufficient. Perhaps recognizing this shortcoming, you sent us an email last night at 6:24 PM
referencing an upcoming November 17 appeal deadline in another case, but that fails to explain
August, September, October, and the rest of November and the first week of December.
Finally, the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings expired on October 15 more than
a year ago. We will not stipulate to a revival of that deadline. The facts in this case have not
changed since the complaint was filed. Indeed, as you admit in your “good faith” letter, “we all
know the gist of the facts at issue.” You had an opportunity to present those facts to the Court,
and the Court dismissed all but one claim. Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, --- F. Supp. 3d --
-, 2020 WL 4382756 (D. Minn. July 31, 2020). We will oppose any attempt to amend the complaint
to add claims at this late date. See, e.g., ecoNugenics, Inc. v. Bioenergy Life Sciences, Inc., 355
F. Supp. 3d 785, 790 (D. Minn. 2019) (listing “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies in previous amendments, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or
futility” as reasons justifying denial of leave to amend) (citing Baptist Health v. Smith, 477 F.3d 540,
544 (8th Cir. 2007)); Barstad v. Murray Cty., 420 F.3d 880, 883 (8th Cir. 2005). The Court already
dismissed the same claims you now say you wish to add. Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, --
- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 4382756 (D. Minn. July 31, 2020). More importantly, the Court dismissed
those claims based on the same theories of liability you seek to advance. Id. The amendments you
have described in your “good faith” letter would be futile.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Monte A. Mills
Monte A. Mills
MM/jak
cc: Samuel J. Clark
Exhibit 17
0123ÿ567189
ÿ8 2ÿ2ÿ29ÿ8ÿ12ÿ5ÿ2ÿ5 2ÿ8ÿ1 7ÿ987ÿ5ÿ27
12ÿ 288
ÿ8 ÿ25ÿ12ÿ8ÿ
591
ÿ2 ÿ92

28998215 ÿ8
ÿ
2ÿ5ÿ93ÿ!"#
$2ÿ ÿ2ÿ29ÿ1
795
ÿ12
ÿ98
ÿ5ÿ52
2
ÿ78
ÿ7123ÿ567189
ÿ25ÿ7899ÿ5ÿ2
5%89ÿ5ÿ2ÿ
591ÿ5 2ÿ8 ÿ
71 ÿ12
ÿ12ÿ5ÿ2ÿ29
ÿ5 2
&ÿ'828 17ÿ&9ÿ(9ÿ12
ÿ
12ÿ881
2ÿ2ÿ7123ÿ1 ÿ)19ÿ!"*
+,-.ÿ0123,ÿ45ÿ7ÿ5898:97;ÿ:<=>:?<:ÿ@>A<:4;BÿC7D>?7ÿ7;EÿF@>??ÿ@>8;?4<5ÿG>:ÿ?H<ÿF?7:ÿI:498;<JÿK>:D4;B
9:<7D4;Bÿ;<K5ÿ5H4G?5ÿ>;ÿF8;E7L5MÿFH<ÿ=:<A4>85NLÿ5=<;?ÿ?H:<<ÿL<7:5ÿ@>A<:4;BÿOPQRÿ<E8@7?4>;ÿ4;ÿ?H<
5>8?HÿS<?:>ÿ7;EÿG4A<ÿS>;?H5ÿ@>A<:4;BÿT7:A<:ÿT>8;?LM
UVWXYZ[\]V^_`aV`VWbcX]Ydef ÿ ghijgkljhkmh ÿ ]VWXn`VWb

2020 12 08 - 70 - Declaration of City

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 12 08 - 70 - Declaration of City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE 0:19-cv-01122-WMW-LIB Doc.

70 Filed 12/08/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

The Satanic Temple, Case No. 19-CV-01122 (WMW/LIB)

Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MONTE A. MILLS

I, Monte A. Mills, hereby declare:

matters stated herein and in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, motion to

2. Attached hereto are true and correct copies of documents cited in

Exhibit 1: Nov. 6, 2020 Email with attachments from Matt Kezhaya to me

Exhibit 2: Nov. 6, 2020 Letter from me to Matt Kezhaya;

Exhibit 3: Nov. 9, 2020 Letter from me to Matt Kezhaya;

Exhibit 5: Nov. 4, 2020 Letter from Matt Kezhaya to me;

Exhibit 6: Nov. 11, 2020 Letter from Matt Kezhaya to me;

Exhibit 7: Aug. 25, 2020 City’s discovery requests directed to Plaintiff;

Exhibit 8: Nov. 24, 2020 Letter from Matt Kezhaya to me;

Exhibit 13: Oct. 23, 2020 Deficiency letter from me to Plaintiff;

Exhibit 14: Nov. 2, 2020 Letter from me to Plaintiff;

Exhibit 16: Nov. 10, 2020 Letter from me to Plaintiff; and

Minneapolis, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.

From: Matthew A. Kezhaya <matt@kezhaya.law>

Legal Administrative Assistant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE SATANIC TEMPLE CASE NO. 19-CV-01122 (WMW/LIB)

V. TST’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF

Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402; MMills@greeneespel.com and SClark@greeneespel.com.

Matters for examination:

2. Original installation of Joe

3. Complaint(s) to the City about the constitutionality of Joe

4. Demand letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation

19-cv-1122 – notice of deposition Page 1 of 3

6. Origins of the limited public forum concept

7. Development of the limited public forum concept

9. Implementation of the limited public forum concept

10. Replacement of Joe

11. TST’s request to place a display

13. Acceptance of TST's request to place the display

14. Complaint(s) to the City about TST’s display

15. Protests about TST’s display or Joe

19. The removal of Joe

20. The preclusion of TST's display

21. As pertains to the Joe display / TST display controversy:

d. City’s communications with Alliance Defending Freedom between January 1, 2017

19-cv-1122 – notice of deposition Page 2 of 3

22. Any community feedback about Joe

23. Any community feedback about TST's display

Propounded on November 6, 2020,

CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE OF SERVICE

19-cv-1122 – notice of deposition Page 3 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE SATANIC TEMPLE CASE NO. 19-CV-01122 (WMW/LIB)

V. TST’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF

2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402.

Propounded on November 6, 2020,

CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE OF SERVICE

19-cv-1122 – notice of deposition Page 1 of 2

19-cv-1122 – notice of deposition Page 2 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE SATANIC TEMPLE CASE NO. 19-CV-01122 (WMW/LIB)

V. TST’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF

2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402.

Propounded on November 6, 2020,

CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE OF SERVICE

19-cv-1122 – notice of deposition Page 1 of 1