Minnesota Lawyer
At issue in this case is the value of the petitioner’s Men’s and Home Department Store at Ridgedale Center in Minnetonka as 2012. The County served petitioner with written discovery requests. Petitioner responded to some requests and proposed a stipulated protective order for certain other responsive materials. Concluding that a protective order was not warranted, the County filed a motion to compel discovery. Petitioner opposed the County’s motion to the extent it sought disclosure without a protective order. The Tax Court noted that the documents petitioner and Ridgedale Center executed did not expressly address confidentiality, and it held that that petitioner’s motion to secure confidentiality for all four documents was overbroad.
27-CV-13-07833 Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. v. County of Hennepin
