Opinion ID: 1929507
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the benefit to EOP from using the information outweigh any harm to the county or Other Taxpayers?

Text: The tax court weighed this question in favor of confidentiality. The court first minimized any benefit to EOP from use of the information based on the conclusion that EOP's expert could prepare an appraisal without it. [22] The tax court then considered the burden on the county and the Other Taxpayers if the information were made public. It found that the burden outweighed any benefit, emphasizing several harms that would result from the information becoming public: Intervenors and Respondent argue that there is a great burden on the county and third party property owners. Intervenors argue that in the future they would not readily give this detailed information to the assessor because of the risk of it falling into the hands of a competitor. A county assessor would face greater difficulty in resolving tax disputes without this information. Further, litigation may increase as property owners/managers would contest taxes simply to undertake discovery. With the information, they could solicit tenants. Further, the property owners provided this information with the understanding that it would be kept confidential.        If this information were to be turned over to Petitioner, even with prohibitions and/or protections about the release of the information, it could cause taxpayers to be less cooperative. Leases themselves could be used as a basis for a solicitation and luring away of tenants. Further, there is a legitimate concern that if this information were to be released, in the future, building owners would contest taxes in order to obtain competitor's information. This would put an undue burden on the county's property tax collection system. Further, the information is proprietary. Although section 13.03, subd. 6, authorizes the court to fashion and issue any protective orders necessary to assure proper handling of the data by the parties, the tax court's order denying EOP's motion to compel recited the Intervenor's concerns but did not state the court's conclusions on a protective order. Implicitly, the court rejected a protective order when it denied the motion to compel, but it did not explain the rationale. Although I believe that a protective order would have been appropriate, I acknowledge that the denial of it was within the tax court's discretion.