Branden Miesmer v. Jovanovich, et al.

D. Montana

Branden Miesmer v. Jovanovich, et al.

DecidedFebruary 23, 2026

Docket6:25-cv-00052

StatusUnknown

This text of Branden Miesmer v. Jovanovich, et al. (Branden Miesmer v. Jovanovich, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Branden Miesmer v. Jovanovich, et al., (D. Mont. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION BRANDEN MIESMER, Cause No. CV 25-52-H-DWM Plaintiff, ORDER VS. JOVANOVICH, ET AL.

Defendants.

Plaintiff Branden Miesmer moves for a preservation order. (Doc. 55.) Defendants oppose the motion. (Docs. 58 and 59.) The motion is denied. Miesmer seeks an order preserving certain specific categories of records that

are likely in possession of the defendants. (Doc. 56 at 3 - 4.) Both Defendant Dr. Johnson and the State Defendants acknowledge their obligations to preserve relevant material and, as such, deny the necessity of any court order. (Docs. 58 and 59.) Once a complaint is filed, parties to a lawsuit have a duty to preserve evidence that is relevant or could reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006). “There are

two sources of authority under which a district court can sanction a party who has despoiled evidence: the inherent power of federal courts to levy sanctions in

response to abusive litigation practices, and the availability of sanctions under Rule

37 against a party who fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” /d., at 958 (internal citation omitted). Federal courts have the power to issue preservation orders as part of their inherent authority “to manage their own affairs

so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Pueblo of Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 135-36 (2004) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, (1962)). However, “[b]ecause of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). The parties are obliged to preserve the relevant evidence they possess. Miesmer has provided no facts to show that evidence is in danger of being destroyed, or that an order of the court is required to protect any information. Additionally, Miesmer may rely on Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 if it turns out evidence has been despoiled. A preservation order is unnecessary and unwarranted at this point. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: Ls Plaintiff Miesmer’s motion is DENIED. (Doc. 55.) 2. At all times, Plaintiff must advise the Court and counsel of any change of address. Failure oe so may result in dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). DATED this 23 “ay of February, 2026.

Dorfald W. Molloy, District Judge nited States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION BRANDEN MIESMER, Cause No. CV 25-52-H-DWM Plaintiff, ORDER VS. JOVANOVICH, ET AL.

Defendants.

Plaintiff Branden Miesmer moves for a preservation order. (Doc. 55.) Defendants oppose the motion. (Docs. 58 and 59.) The motion is denied. Miesmer seeks an order preserving certain specific categories of records that

are likely in possession of the defendants. (Doc. 56 at 3 - 4.) Both Defendant Dr. Johnson and the State Defendants acknowledge their obligations to preserve relevant material and, as such, deny the necessity of any court order. (Docs. 58 and 59.) Once a complaint is filed, parties to a lawsuit have a duty to preserve evidence that is relevant or could reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006). “There are

two sources of authority under which a district court can sanction a party who has despoiled evidence: the inherent power of federal courts to levy sanctions in

response to abusive litigation practices, and the availability of sanctions under Rule

37 against a party who fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” /d., at 958 (internal citation omitted). Federal courts have the power to issue preservation orders as part of their inherent authority “to manage their own affairs

so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Pueblo of Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 135-36 (2004) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, (1962)). However, “[b]ecause of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). The parties are obliged to preserve the relevant evidence they possess. Miesmer has provided no facts to show that evidence is in danger of being destroyed, or that an order of the court is required to protect any information. Additionally, Miesmer may rely on Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 if it turns out evidence has been despoiled. A preservation order is unnecessary and unwarranted at this point. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: Ls Plaintiff Miesmer’s motion is DENIED. (Doc. 55.) 2. At all times, Plaintiff must advise the Court and counsel of any change of address. Failure oe so may result in dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). DATED this 23 “ay of February, 2026.

Dorfald W. Molloy, District Judge nited States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Branden Miesmer v. Jovanovich, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branden-miesmer-v-jovanovich-et-al-mtd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack