Donovan Wayne Frank
How Judge Frank decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Frank holds summary-judgment movants strictly to their Celotex burden of production. Where the movant would NOT bear the burden of persuasion at trial, it cannot win SJ merely by asserting the nonmovant lacks evidence; it must affirmatively show the absence of evidence in the record (e.g. by reviewing the admissions, interrogatories, and exchanges). A conclusory 'no evidence' assertion, or a thin 'information and belief' affidavit covering only a partial period, will not discharge that burden and the motion is denied. Movants should marshal the actual record, not just attack the opponent's proof.
“a party who moves for summary judgment on the ground that the nonmoving party has no evidence must affirmatively show the absence of evidence in the record. ... If the moving party has not fully discharged this initial burden of production, its motion for summary judgment must be denied”
Procedural preferences
Reconsideration is hard in front of Frank: under D. Minn. Local Rule 7.1(g) he grants leave to file a motion to reconsider only on a showing of 'compelling circumstances,' and disagreement with the Court's prior reasoning is not enough. Move for reconsideration only with genuinely new grounds.
“Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g), a request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration will only be granted upon a showing of “compelling circumstances.””
Frank relies heavily on his magistrate judges and adopts unobjected Reports & Recommendations as a matter of course; when a party (including a pro se litigant) does object, he conducts a genuine de novo review under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) before ruling. Litigants who disagree with an R&R must file timely, specific objections to preserve review.
“The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b).”
Cautions
Frank guards pro se litigants' objection rights procedurally: in Scheffler he VACATED his own already-entered order adopting the R&R (and the judgment) once he realized the pro se plaintiff had filed objections, directed the defendant to respond, and only re-adopted the R&R months later after the objections were fully briefed. Counsel should not assume an adoption order is final if pro se objections are outstanding.
“The Court's Order Adopting Report and Recommendation filed on August 29, 2018 (Doc. No. 30) is hereby VACATED. ... The Court respectfully directs the defendant to respond to Plaintiff's objections (Doc. No. 31) within 14 days”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Alltran Financial, LP's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. [9]) is GRANTED. ... Plaintiff Troy K. Scheffler's Complaint (Doc. No. [1]) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [6]) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [9]) is GRANTED.”
“Bilimbi Bay Minnesota, LLC, d/b/a Bilimbi Bay, (“Bilimbi Bay”) and F. Lamar Hamilton's request for leave to file a motion to reconsider (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. [15]) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 324 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 244 days (N = 1).
Frank-assigned dockets confirmed via search_dockets (assigned_judge='Donovan W. Frank'). His current (2026) active docket is heavy with consolidated payer/insurer litigation against Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group / Optum (e.g. Johnson, Apex Physical Rehab, Dr. Stefana Pecher, Care Counseling Services v. UnitedHealth; Allied World / Radiology Associates v. Optum) and a wave of Medtronic product-liability filings (Holmes, Jackson, Van der Steeg, McGrew, Loughry, Williams v. Medtronic), plus federal criminal matters (e.g. US v. Dayib, US v. Godinez-Herrera). The older sample read this session spans FDCPA/Consumer Credit (Scheffler), Social Security (Hicks), pro se jail-conditions civil rights (Schill), and PACA produce disputes (Bix). Not exhaustive.