1. The County's motion to compel discovery is granted.

a. By prior ruling from the bench, Lowe's had until December 15, 2020, to serve complete responses to Interrogatories 12 and 25, and Document Requests 7, 8, 17, 19, and 20.[1]

b. With the exception of objections to producing documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and qualifying as attorney work-product, Lowe's objections to Interrogatory 23, and Document Requests 22, 23, 30, and 34, are overruled.

c. Lowe's shall serve complete responses to Interrogatory 23, and Document Requests 22, 23, 30, and 34, on or before January 15, 2021.

2. The County may file and serve within 30 days of the date of this order an affidavit setting forth its expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in connection with its motion to compel. Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(d)(1). Any opposition to the County's affidavit must be filed and served within 10 days of service of the County's affidavit.

3. The County's motion to extend its discovery and appraisal deadlines is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED

BY THE COURT:

DATED: January 8, 2021

I. BACKGROUND

On June 16, 2020, Anoka County served its first set of Interrogatories and Requests for the Production of Documents.[2] The County's discovery requested information about the subject property's valuation relative to other Lowe's facilities, income and expense information, proposed budgets, etc.[3] Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe's”), timely responded to the County's discovery requests.[4]

After review of Lowe's responses, on July 17, 2020, counsel for the County emailed Lowe's counsel, noting the County could not determine, based on Lowe's responses and objections, which documents Lowe's would actually produce.[5] The County also noted it had no objection to a protective order, and requested a draft from Lowe's.[6] In response, later that day, Lowe's offered to prepare a proposed protective order and to provide additional detail on what it intended to produce.[7] On August 10, 2020, and August 18, 2020, the County again reached out to Lowe's inquiring about the proposed protective order and the status of responsive material.[8]

*2 On August 20, 2020, Lowe's responded with a draft protective order and some discovery responses.[9] On September 2, 2020, this court entered a protective order at the request of the parties’ stipulated joint motion for a protective order.[10] The order offers additional protections, among other things, to information deemed “proprietary information.”[11]

Between September 8, 2020, and October 5, 2020, the parties exchanged at least nine emails concerning the status of the outstanding discovery.[12] Dissatisfied with the responses, the County filed the present motions on November 24, 2020.[13] A hearing was held on December 10, 2020, at which Anoka County confirmed it sought responses to only the discovery highlighted in its memorandum.[14] Based upon the evidence and arguments of counsel, we grant the County's motion to compel.

II. ANOKA COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Parties may obtain discovery by methods including written interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(a).[15] Rule 26.02 governs the scope and limits of discovery and provides in part as follows:

Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(b).

The frequency or extent of use of the foregoing discovery methods “shall be limited by the court” upon a determination “the burden of proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26.02(b).” Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(b)(3)(iii). This court generally allows broad discovery, so long as that discovery is likely to lead to admissible evidence. Ford Motor Co. v. Cty. of Ramsey, No. 62-CV-08-3719 et al., 2012 WL 3870322, at *1 (Minn. T.C. Sept. 4, 2012) (citing standard pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02).

A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer or production. Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(b)(2). Here, the discovery responses sought by Anoka County fall into two categories: undisputed and disputed discovery.

A. Undisputed discovery requests

Anoka County moves this court for an order to compel Lowe's to disclose responses to its Interrogatories 12 and 25, and its Requests for the Production of Documents 7, 8, 17, 19, and 20.[16] With its response, Lowe's states either it has no responsive materials or Lowe's concedes it owes the County responses to these discovery items.[17] For these reasons, at the December 10, 2020 hearing, this court ordered Lowe's to serve complete responses, which may include a properly signed statement that no responsive materials exist, to Interrogatories 12 and 25, and Requests for the Production of Documents 7, 8, 17, 19, and 20, by December 15, 2020, and now so memorializes.[18]

B. Disputed discovery requests

*3 Anoka County's remaining requests, Interrogatories 23, and Requests for the Production of Documents 22, 23, 34, and 30, were objected to by Lowe's.[19] They are discussed below.

With Interrogatory 23, Anoka County requested:

Document Request 22 similarly requested:

In its formal responses, Lowe's objected to these two discovery requests, specifically arguing they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, not relevant, and seek information not within the petitioner's control or information potentially protected under the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine.[22]

In support of its motion, Anoka County argues that these requests—seeking descriptions of any representations about the value of the subject property that Lowe's has made or received—is similar to the requests made in Wells Fargo Bank v. County of Hennepin, No. 27-CV-17-06212 et al., 2018 WL 6031697 (Minn. T.C. Nov. 9, 2018).[23] There, this court ordered disclosure of similar information, noting the county “is entitled to know, in advance of trial, what [the petitioner] believes the property was worth as of each valuation date.” Id. at *7. In response, Lowe's agrees the request is relevant,[24] but argues responding to these requests would be unduly burdensome, stating “this would require a massive review of email throughout Lowe's as a corporate entity[,]” which would upset the balance outlined in Rule 26.02(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.[25] Anoka County replies that Lowe's “objection is overstated,” and that “Lowe's surely has a defined group of people who might be in position to opine about the value of the subject store[.]”[26] This court agrees with the County that Lowe's has an obligation to reasonably comply with these requests, including a targeted search for responsive information. As such, Lowe's objections, save for its attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine objections, are overruled, and Lowe's must respond.

*4 With these two document requests, Anoka County seeks “all documents related to the value (for tax purposes or otherwise) of all stores in Anoka, Blue Earth, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Olmsted, Ramsey, Scott, St. Louis, and Washington counties ....” and “[a]ll appraisals or other valuations prepared for or on behalf of Petitioner” in the same counties.[27] In its responses, Lowe's made a series of objections, including that the requests were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and relevance.[28]

Anoka County argues its discovery is relevant because it seeks “information about Lowe's own internal assessment of the value of its stores located in selected counties along with outside appraisals that Lowe's has obtained for those properties.”[29] The County further argues that even if some of the responsive information would not help this court conclude to the subject property's market value, it may serve as impeachment evidence.[30] Lowe's reiterated its relevancy objection, stated other Lowe's stores are dissimilar to the subject property, and implied other Lowe's stores valuations would not be helpful in determining the subject property's market value.[31] Lowe's also argues valuations or statements of value would not assist with impeachment of Lowe's to-be-identified expert.[32]

Lowe's objections, without a meaningful attempt to search for responsive materials, are insufficient. Although this court may ultimately decline to rely on evidence of other Lowe's stores’ values, what other Lowe's stores are valued at may be relevant to the value of the subject property by comparison. Additionally, Lowe's statements of value may be used as impeachment evidence as to a Lowe's representative. Lowe's relevancy objection is overruled; Lowe's must make a reasonable effort to uncover responsive materials.

With document request 30, Anoka County seeks all “documents related to the trade area in which the Subject Property is located.”[33] With its initial responses, Lowe's makes a series of objections, including overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and seeks “highly confidential and propriet[ar]y information that Petitioner does not release publicly.”[34] Lowe's points this court to a previous communication concerning this document request, which stated that Lowe's “continues to investigate, ... but no responsive information has been located to date.”[35] Anoka County is entitled to either responsive information, possibly pursuant to the stipulated Protective Order, or a properly signed statement that no such information exists.

III. ANOKA COUNTY'S MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES

Lastly, the County seeks an extension of its discovery and appraisal exchange deadlines.[36] Anoka County argues it requires an extension, without a similar extension given to Lowe's, because Lowe's discovery responses may spur further discovery.[37] Because Anoka County's concern—that it may need to serve additional discovery—is only speculative at this point, the County's motion is denied without prejudice.

*5 J.N.B.H.

Tr. 33-34 (Dec. 10, 2020).

Declaration of Jason Stover (“Stover Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. B. The County's communication satisfies Rule 37.01(b)’s requirement that a “movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(b).

Stover Decl., Ex. B.

Stover Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C.

Stover Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. E.

Stover Decl., Ex. E.

Stover Decl., Ex. E.

Stover Decl. ¶¶ 7-8, Exs. F-G.

Stover Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. H.

Stip. Jt. Mot. Protective Order (filed Aug. 26, 2020); Protective Order (filed Sept. 2, 2020).

Protective Order 1-3.

Stover Decl. ¶¶ 11-19, Exs. J-R.

Resp't’s Mot. Compel Discovery (filed Nov. 24, 2020); Resp't’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel Discovery (filed Nov. 24, 2020)

Tr. 12 (“We are only looking for [Lowe's] to respond to the ones that we've called out in the briefing.”).

Minnesota Statutes section 271.06, subdivision 7 (2020), provides that the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure govern the procedures in the tax court, where practicable.

Resp't’s Mem. 9-11, 14 (with its memorandum, the County limited the scope of request 17).

Pet'r’s Mem. Opp'n 6 (filed Dec. 3, 2020) (“Lowe's has clearly stated that it has nothing responsive to produce in response to four [discovery requests]: Interrogatory No. 12 and Document Requests Nos. 8, 19, and 20. With respect to the remaining two, Lowe's acknowledges that it needs to produce certain financial statements, and will do so.”). As to request 17, Lowe's agreed to comply with Anoka County's proposed limited scope of the request. Id. at 11.

Tr. 33-34.

Resp't’s Mem.13-16; Pet'r’s Mem. Opp'n 9-12.

Stover Decl., Ex. B, at 6 (interrogatories).

Stover Decl., Ex. B, at 6 (requests).

Stover Decl., Ex. C, at 11 (interrogatories), 12 (requests).

Resp't’s Mem. 13-14.

Pet'r’s Mem. Opp'n 11.

Pet'r’s Mem. Opp'n 9-10.

Resp't’s Reply Mem. 9 (filed Dec. 7, 2020).

Stover Decl., Ex. B, at 6-8 (requests).

Stover Decl., Ex. C, at 12-13, 18 (requests).

Resp't’s Mem. 15.

Resp't’s Mem. 16.

Pet'r’s Mem. Opp'n 11. Lowe's memorandum states: “Lowe's stores are so particularly unique in their size, shape or configuration that the only way to judge a Lowe's store is by comparison to other Lowe's stores. These stores were constructed in different times, in different markets, to different specifications.” Id. The court assumes Lowe's intended to argue that other Lowe's stores would not be good comparables.

Pet'r’s Mem. Opp'n 11-12.

Stover Decl., Ex. B, at 8 (requests).

Stover Decl., Ex. C, at 16 (requests).

Pet'r’s Mem. Opp'n 12 (citing Stover Decl., Ex. H).

Resp't’s Mem. 18-19.

Resp't’s Mem. 18.