Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Discovery – Protective Orders

jennifersteen//February 3, 2014//

Discovery – Protective Orders

jennifersteen//February 3, 2014//

Listen to this article


At issue in these consolidated cases is the value of the petitioner’s Women’s and Children’s Department Store at Ridgedale Center in Minnetonka as of 2009, 2010 and 2011. 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-10-08442, 27-CV-11-08004, 27-CV-12-10080 Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. v. County of Hennepin

Click for Full Text

Top News

See All Top News

Legal calendar

Click here to see upcoming Minnesota events

Expert Testimony

See All Expert Testimony