Attorneys for a government watchdog group asked a judge Wednesday to rule that Minneapolis violated state data laws by withholding records of police misconduct, in what’s become a protracted civil case exposing how the city’s police department uses a secretive process known as coaching.

In a Hennepin County courtroom, Leita Walker, lawyer for nonprofit Minnesota Coalition On Government Information (MNCOGI), presented Judge Karen Janisch with copies of internal letters addressed to police officers explicitly referring to coaching as a type of “discipline.” One contained the phrase: “As discipline for this incident, you will receive coaching.”

The letters, signed by former police chiefs, contradict the city’s longstanding position that coaching — a gentle form of one-on-one corrective action — doesn’t amount to real “discipline,” and therefore isn’t a matter of public record, Walker said. She told the judge that the letters are one piece of a “mountain of evidence” demonstrating that the city has misled the public in claiming coaching is non-disciplinary and doesn’t have to be disclosed.

The city’s lawyers asked Janisch to throw out the lawsuit, arguing the Minneapolis Police Department has an established practice of viewing coaching as a non-punitive “managerial tool” that falls below the threshold of real discipline. City Attorney Sarah Riskin acknowledged that former police chiefs signed those letters, but said they did not write them — and they didn’t mean to include language calling coaching “discipline.”

“The chiefs did not intend to punish, penalize or discipline,” she told the court.

Beyond the legal debate, the lawsuit has opened a window into the city’s convoluted process of coaching officers, the most common outcome for police found to have violated department policy. The Star Tribune reported in May that documents released as part of the civil action, including transcripts of under-oath depositions, reveal that top Minneapolis officials have publicly misrepresented how they use coaching.

After the 2020 murder of George Floyd, under questioning about transparency in the coaching process, city and police officials claimed they only used coaching to handle minor policy violations — called A-category infractions — like not wearing a seatbelt or a problem in writing a report.

But the court documents reveal the MPD has used coaching in response to more serious violations, including excessive force complaints. The city has quietly coached officers for mishandling a gun and firing into the precinct wall, failing to report a colleague’s use of force and letting a K-9 off leash and allowing it to attack a civilian, according to court records.

In court and legal motions, the city acknowledges the police department has used coaching for the more serious B-category violations in the past, but says it “only happened 13 times” and there were “zero instances” of coaching on more serious infractions, called C-category violations.

Walker, however, told Janisch that she’s recently discovered records proving that more officers have been coached for serious violations than the city claims. Records also show the city has coached at least one violation the police department initially classified as C-category.

Former Chief Medaria Arradondo signed a March 2021 letter disciplining an officer for breaking department policy on accessing confidential records — a “sustained” C-category violation — that occurred in 2017. After the police union grieved the discipline, Arradondo agreed to downgrade the misconduct to a B-category and coach the officer, making records of the misconduct private, according to the document.

The Star Tribune asked multiple city officials if this agreement contradicts their statements about never coaching such a serious, C-category violation. Greta Bergstrom, the city’s director of communications, speaking on behalf of the city attorney’s office, said this occurred one month after the time period being debated in the lawsuit. She did not respond to a follow-up inquiry on whether the city has continued to coach in connection with these higher-level violations.

The lawsuit, filed in 2021, stems from a public records request filed by MNCOGI asking for coaching documents, which a city clerk summarily closed without providing any data.

In court motions, the city argues MNCOGI has wrongfully tried to “make this case about police accountability,” when the legal argument comes down to a narrow question about whether coaching documents are discipline and public data. A motion says coaching is intended to be “supportive” and not “punitive,” and the city has been consistent in its position for many years.

“This case is about whether data on coaching is private personnel data,” City Attorney Kristyn Anderson said in a prior statement. “If it is private personnel data, and we believe it is, then the City is not legally permitted under State law to provide public access to it.”

MNCOGI has accused the city of using coaching as a rhetorical loophole that keeps records of serious misconduct hidden from the public. The civil suit alleges Minneapolis misinterprets Minnesota public records laws by labeling coaching documents as private data. This practice has promoted a culture of secrecy, allowing MPD to operate without accountability to the people it serves, according to the civil complaint.

Attorneys for the all-volunteer public-records group say the city has taken “the untenable position that a government’s public statements are beyond reproach — and that members of the public are not entitled to see internal documents that contradict those ‘official’ statements,” according to a court motion.

Walker and Isabella Salomão Nascimento, of the Ballard Spahr law firm and the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, are representing MNCOGI. Walker has represented several local media organizations, including the Star Tribune, in cases related to public records and the First Amendment.

Dozens of hours of deposition transcripts with high-ranking city officials for the lawsuit show how Minneapolis leaders struggled to define exactly why coaching does not qualify as discipline and is not a matter of public record.

When pressed by Walker in separate depositions, former deputy chiefs Amelia Huffman and Troy Schoenberger couldn’t explain the difference between coaching and a verbal warning, even though the latter is classified as public data.

Yet both maintained it was in fact different, somehow.

“You and Ms. Huffman essentially have testified that a warning is different than coaching because the City says it is; isn’t that true?” Walker asked Schoenberger earlier this year.

“Yes,” concurred Schoenberger.

In court Wednesday, Janisch didn’t give a clear signal as to which way she planned to rule. But she asked the city why the fact that police chiefs refer to coaching as “discipline” in formal letters shouldn’t carry weight.

Riskin said the chiefs did not actually write those letters, noting that all three have since signed affidavits saying they did not view the coaching as discipline. “It wasn’t the chief sitting down and writing out the letter from scratch saying, ‘OK, I’m thinking about every word that I put on here.’”

“Aren’t they tied to it if they sign it?” the judge interjected.

“Well, I don’t think so, because the unrebutted facts are that they didn’t prepare it,” replied Riskin. “They admit they were focused on the outcome. They admit they weren’t looking at the specific words. These were template letters prepared by administrative staff. They say they were administrative errors.”

“[Why not] correct how you do the letter?” Janisch later asked.

”Look, it would’ve been ideal to correct how the letter is done,” Riskin acknowledged, noting that at one point those records were updated with new language. But, between changing police administrations, the “disciplinary” verbiage slipped back in.

”These are prepared by administrative folks who come and go,” Riskin continued. “You have other people, they’re working from some template documents, boilerplate documents. Humans are humans, and that’s where human error comes in.”

Riskin repeatedly argued that the plain language of coaching letters was not important. Intent was what mattered, she said — and top brass have always maintained that coaching was not discipline.

A newly proposed Minneapolis police labor contract, ratified by the union last month, attempts to codify the city’s longstanding position on coaching. Without using the word “coaching,” the tentative agreement specifies that discipline refers exclusively to written reprimands, suspensions, demotions and discharges. That accord still requires approval by the full City Council.

Janisch expects to issue a ruling in the next 60 to 90 days.