Grosinger v. G.L.D., 855 N.W.2d 99

In 2007 G.L.D. was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual; prior denials of discharge were affirmed by this Court in 2011 and 2012.
In Feb 2013 G.L.D. petitioned for discharge; the State submitted Dr. Lynne Sullivan’s evaluation concluding he remains sexually dangerous and referencing chart reviews and conflicts with staff/residents.
G.L.D. requested production of: (1) his complete medical/chart records (State Hospital notes after Mar 6, 2013 and outside medical records) and (2) reports/documents about an alleged assault and disposition of that investigation.
The State objected, claiming it did not possess all records, that many records were medical (not treatment) records, and that the requests were irrelevant or overly broad; it said progress notes after March 2013 had been provided.
The district court denied the motion to compel, finding the records not relevant or already provided; after an evidentiary hearing it denied the discharge petition, finding by clear and convincing evidence G.L.D. remains sexually dangerous.
The Supreme Court reversed the discovery denial, vacated the discharge denial, and remanded for further proceedings, concluding the district court abused its discretion by not ordering production of confidential records provided to the state’s attorney and State Hospital incident/chart/medical records.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by denying G.L.D.’s motion to compel production of medical/chart/incident records	G.L.D.: Records (State Hospital charts, incident reports, outside medical records) are relevant to rebut State’s proof and to show ability (or lack) to control behavior; he is statutorily entitled to confidential records provided to the state’s attorney	State: It did not possess some requested records; records were medical (not treatment) and not relevant to the discharge issues; progress notes after Mar 2013 were already provided	Court reversed: district court abused its discretion; G.L.D. is entitled to confidential records provided to the state’s attorney and incident reports/chart/medical records in State Hospital control
Whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that G.L.D. remains a sexually dangerous individual	G.L.D.: Challenged the sufficiency (and relied on potential additional records to contest behavioral findings)	State: Presented Dr. Sullivan’s evaluation and testimony concluding G.L.D. has relevant disorder, propensity for sexual predation, and serious difficulty controlling behavior	Court vacated denial of discharge and remanded because the erroneous discovery ruling requires further proceedings; did not rule on ultimate sufficiency of evidence

In re M.D., 598 N.W.2d 799 (N.D. 1999) (civil nature of sexually dangerous individual proceedings)
In re Wolff, 796 N.W.2d 644 (N.D. 2011) (credibility deference to trial court; conduct showing inability to control behavior need not be sexual)
In re E.W.F., 751 N.W.2d 686 (N.D. 2008) (definition of “likely to engage in further acts” and requirement of serious difficulty controlling behavior)
In re G.R.H., 711 N.W.2d 587 (N.D. 2006) (nexus requirement between disorder and dangerousness to satisfy due process)
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (due process requires proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior for civil commitment)
In re Hehn, 838 N.W.2d 469 (N.D. 2013) (standard of review for commitment reviews)
In re Thill, 845 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 2014) (statutory elements the State must prove to maintain commitment)