Postelmans v. Williston, City of et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Renate Evangeline Postelmans, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
v. 	)
)
Detective Dustin Celander of the 	)
Williston Police Department, 	) 	Case No.: 1:18-cv-00214
)
Defendant. 	)
On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff Renate Evangeline Postelmans (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion
to Compel Limited Comparator Discovery and Request for Protective Order. (Doc. No. 64).
Defendant Detective Dustin Celander of the Williston Police Department (“Defendant”) filed a
response in opposition to the motion on February 5, 2026. (Doc. No. 68). Plaintiff has not filed a
reply.
On June 30, 2026, the court ordered Defendant to supplement his response with
clarification as to the storage of the requested files and whether there is an organizational system
in place at the off-site storage facility. (Doc. No. 87). On July 10, 2026, Defendant provided the
requested supplemental information to the extent he was able. (Doc. No. 89).
I. 	BACKGROUND
On May 29, 2025, Plaintiff served her First Set of Requests for Production on Defendant.
Request for Production (“RFP”) 15 requested the production of “[a]ll sexual assault complaint
records (2012-present) with outcomes, redacting victims’ identities.” (Doc. No. 64-1 at 2).
On June 30, 2025, Defendant served written responses on Plaintiff, including an objection
to RFP 15 on the grounds it was vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome, not proportional or
relevant, and seeks confidential information. (Doc. No. 64-2 at 2-3).
Case 1:18-cv-00214-DLH-CRH Document 90 Filed 07/17/26 Page 1 of 6

2
On November 28, 2025, Plaintiff sent Defendant a written meet-and-confer, wherein she
narrowed the request of RFP 15 to the period of July 1, 2014, through July 1, 2016, with redactions
and confidentiality safeguards. (Doc. No. 64-3 at 2). Plaintiff specifically requested:
For that narrowed two-year period, please either (a) provide redacted reports or an
anonymized summary/spreadsheet (e.g., date, local/non-local victim, local/non-
local suspect, whether the victim was an entertainer if known, and outcome), and
whether there were any problems with the investigation, such as between the
investigator and victim. List any complaints that were made.
(Id.).
On January 2, 2026, Defendant served his second supplemental response to the First Set of
Requests for Production, which included a supplemented answer to RFP 15. (Doc. No. 68 at 2).
Therein, 	Defendant 	stated, 	“Per 	the 	Williston 	Police 	Department’s 	database, 	Defendant
investigated four GSI matters between 2014-2016. Defendant does not have the remaining
information requested in this interrogatory as those files are maintained in off-site storage.” (Doc.
No. 64-6 at 2).
After a status conference with the court on January 16, 2026, Plaintiff was authorized to
file a motion to compel, and on January 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Limited
Comparator Discovery and Request for Protective Order under Rule 26(c). (Doc. Nos. 62, 64).
Per her motion, Plaintiff requests Defendant provide:
a. (Within 14-days) A centrally maintained index of relevant comparator matters
(2014-2016), containing standardized, anonymized fields if available; and
b. (Within 30-days) A small stratified random sample of 30 comparator
materials, subject to redactions and a protective order. As this sample size
represents 18.5% of the total comparative size, it is proportional and not
burdensome.
(Doc. No. 64 at 5) (emphasis in original). In requesting these files, Plaintiff argued that she does
not seek wholesale production of the complaint files, rather, this approach aims to minimize any
burden, protect privacy, and manage the scope. (Id.).
Case 1:18-cv-00214-DLH-CRH Document 90 Filed 07/17/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Plaintiff also requested the issuance of a protective order under Rule 26(c) to limit the use
of the files to this litigation, to prohibit dissemination, and to require the redaction of
victim/witness identifiers. (Id. at 8).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Discovery is governed by Rule 26. Rule 26 further identifies the scope and limits of
discovery.
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties’ relative 	access 	to 	relevant 	information, 	the 	parties’ resources, 	the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information is discoverable when relevant to a party’s claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 2015
amendment. “After the proponent makes a threshold showing of relevance, the party opposing the
motion to compel has the burden of showing its objections are valid by providing specific
explanations or factual support as to how each discovery request is improper.” Linseth v. Sustayta,
No. 1:21-CV-173, 2022 WL 16744347, at *2 (D.N.D. Nov. 7, 2022); see Jo Ann Howard &
Assocs., P.C. v. Cassity, 303 F.R.D. 539, 542 (E.D. Mo. 2014). “The party must demonstrate to the
court ‘that the requested documents either do not come within the broad scope of relevance defined
pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) or else are of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned
by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.’” Jo Ann
Howard & Assocs., P.C., 303 F.R.D. at 542 (quoting Burke v. New York City Police Dep’t., 115
F.R.D. 220, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)).
Case 1:18-cv-00214-DLH-CRH Document 90 Filed 07/17/26 Page 3 of 6

4
III. 	DISCUSSION
The crux of the conflict is on RFP 15. Specifically, whether or not the narrowed request for
comparator files is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, beyond the scope of the litigation, and
whether such disclosure would raise confidentiality and privacy issues, even if the parties were
subject to a protective order.
Plaintiff argues in part that her request is not overbroad as it includes a narrowed time
frame, index, small, stratified sample, and redactions and exclusions. (Doc. No. 64 at 7). In
response, 	Defendant 	claims 	that 	the 	request 	“fundamentally 	misunderstands 	how 	police
investigative files are maintained and grossly underestimates the burden involved.” (Doc. No. 68
at 4). Defendant further contends that disclosing these materials within 14 and 30 days is not
feasible. (Id.).
As noted in Defendant’s supplemental answer to RFP 15, the police files, including the
sexual assault complaint files, from July 1, 2014, to July 1, 2026, are stored in boxes off-site from
the Williston Police Department, and are not in a centrally searchable datable. (Id.). “Each case
file is maintained individually and contains varying types and amounts of documents including
witness statements, victim interviews, suspect interviews, medical records, forensic evidence
reports, 	investigator 	notes, 	photographic 	evidence, 	correspondence, 	and 	case 	disposition
information.” (Id.).
Upon further inquiry from the court, Defendant provided clarification as to the storage of
the requested files. Notably, Defendant informed the court that he has discovered the Williston
Police Department utilizes an electronic records storage system known as “Fireside,” and has been
attempting to determine whether the requested files are available through that system or are located
elsewhere, and the extent to which they may be electronically accessible. (Doc. No. 89 at 2).
Case 1:18-cv-00214-DLH-CRH Document 90 Filed 07/17/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Defendant also provided a list of GSI cases handled by the Williston Police Department and
himself from 2015-2016 and is currently attempting to obtain information as to the storage and
indexing methods for the files stored at the off-site facility. (Id.). Finally, Defendant advised that
the information sought by Plaintiff is no longer relevant as she is seeking comparator evidence in
support of her Equal Protection claims, which were dismissed by the court in its April 1, 2026,
Order. (Doc. No. 89; see also Doc. No. 76).
Upon further review of the record in this matter, the court is inclined to agree with
Defendant. On April 1, 2026, this court ordered that multiple counts in Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint be dismissed, including her Equal Protection Claim, based on the Eighth Circuit’s
finding that law enforcement investigative actions may not be attacked in a class-of-one equal
protection claim. (Doc. No. 76 at 6-7, 11-12).
Plaintiff herself admits that the requested information is for her Equal Protection claim.
(See Doc. No. 64 at 1) (“Comparator handling is central to Equal Protection analysis because the
question is whether Plaintiff was treated differently than similarly situated complainants.”); (Id. at
2) (“Plaintiff’s claims include Equal Protection allegations that turn on whether Plaintiff was
treated differently from similarly situated complainants in the handling of sexual-assault
complaints.”).
Because this court has previously dismissed the Equal Protection claim, Plaintiff’s motion
admits that the requested files are for the dismissed claim, and there is no other basis for which
Plaintiff is seeking comparator discovery, the requested discovery is no longer relevant. Requiring
Defendant to locate, retrieve, review, and redact the requested records, along with significant
privacy concerns, outweighs the benefit of its disclosure. For these reasons, Defendant shall not
be subject to further compelled production of these records, and no protective order shall issue.
Case 1:18-cv-00214-DLH-CRH Document 90 Filed 07/17/26 Page 5 of 6

6
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated above, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 64) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 17th day of July, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:18-cv-00214-DLH-CRH Document 90 Filed 07/17/26 Page 6 of 6