Discovery – Sanctions

At issue in these consolidated cases is the value, as of 2009, 2010, and 2011, of a super-regional mall located in Minnetonka, Minnesota, owned by petitioner. The County served petitioner with written discovery. Petitioner responded in part and sought a stipulated protective order for specified responsive materials. Concluding that such a protective order was unwarranted, the County filed a motion to compel discovery. In February, the Tax Court granted the County’s motion to compel discovery and denied petitioner’s request for a protective order. Petitioner subsequently provided copies of the disputed documents to the County, but added to each page of each document a “confidential” watermark and a footer stating that further distribution of the documents would be a violation of our order. In response, the County brought this motion to compel and motion for sanctions. The Tax Court found that petitioner willfully disobeyed its order; acted in bad faith by asserting a frivolous argument which was without basis in law or fact; and by altering the documents has wrongfully obstructed the County’s access to documents having potential evidentiary value. It therefore granted the County’s motion to compel discovery and for sanctions.

27-CV-11-08712, 27-CV-12-09013, 27-CV-13-07974 GGP Ltd. P’ship v. County of Hennepin

Click for Full Text