Petitioner moved to compel discovery responses in these consolidated valuation cases seeking, in part, protected income property assessment data for numerous parcels other than the subject property. Although the county initially objected to disclosure, it later agreed that petitioner should receive the requested data, subject to a pretrial protective order. Intervenors opposed the disclosure of their protected data. The Tax Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel and filed an unopposed and strict pretrial protective order shielding protected data from public dissemination and even from petitioner itself.
27-CV-20-907, 27-CV-21-2321 G&I VIII WF Plaza LLC v. County of Hennepin
Service of Process
The county moved to dismiss this property tax case on the grounds that petitioner failed to effectuate service of the petition and the court lacked jurisdiction. Petitioner opposed the motion, arguing that electronically filing the property tax petition with the tax court by the April 30 deadline superseded the statutory requirement of service. The Tax Court concluded that, because petitioner did not timely serve the petition in this matter, regardless of when it was filed with district court, it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. Motion granted.
27-CV-22-6620 Stankovsky v. County of Hennepin