Opinion ID: 1276694
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: pre-condemnation appraisal reports pertaining to condemnee's property

Text: A. Application of Federal Law The majority opinion concluded that it was not necessary to address federal law in resolving the issues raised in this original jurisdiction proceeding because the circuit court's order failed to demonstrate any reliance on federal law by that court in its determination of the issues presented. On the contrary, the issues raised in this proceeding must be resolved by federal law. [1] The instant proceeding arose from the condemnation of Fort Pleasant's property in connection with the Corridor H project of the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways (hereinafter referred to as the DOH). The Corridor H project is a federally assisted highway project subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, found at 42 U.S.C. § 4601, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the Federal Act). Pursuant to the Federal Act, federal funding and approval of state programs is available only where the state agency provides assurances that, in acquiring real property it will be guided, to the greatest extent practicable under State law, by the land acquisition policies in section 4651 of this title and the provisions of section 4652 of this title. . . . 42 U.S.C. § 4655(a)(1) (1987) (2000 ed.). [2] With respect to the requirement that states comply with federal law to the greatest extent practicable under State law, it has been observed that by `practicable' Congress intended to have the grant recipient comply with the [42 U.S.C.] § 4651 procedures to the fullest extent to which it is legally capable of complying under state law. City of Columbia, S.C. v. Costle, 710 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th Cir.1983) (citations omitted). [3] Plainly, then, unless there is some impediment to compliance under state law, the DOH is required to fully comply with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 4651 when acquiring real property for a project for which it receives federal funding. Rather than creating an impediment to the application of the Federal Act, W. Va.Code § 54-3-3 (1988) (Repl.Vol.2000) requires acquiring agencies [4] to adopt rules and regulations to implement its provisions, and grants such agencies the power and authority to do the same: [5] In order to accomplish the purposes set forth in section two of this article and to satisfy the requirements of adequately compensating displaced persons under such federal acts, each acquiring agency is hereby required and is hereby granted plenary power and authority to adopt rules and regulations, which shall have the force and effect of law, to implement the provisions of such federal acts and make applicable to such acquiring agency the policies and requirements of such federal acts which are pertinent to the mission and functions of such acquiring agency, including, without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, the carrying out of all procedures and the making of all financial assistance payments, relocation assistance payments, replacement housing payments, loans and expense reimbursement payments required by such federal acts, subject only to any restrictions or limitations imposed by the constitution of the state of West Virginia. . . . (Emphasis added). See also Huntington Urban Renewal Auth. v. Commercial Adjunct Co., 161 W.Va. 360, 367, 242 S.E.2d 562, 566 (1978) (State agencies receiving federal financial assistance must give federal authorities satisfactory assurances that in acquiring real property they will be guided, to the greatest extent practicable under State law, by this policy. 42 U.S.C. 4655 (1971). To carry out the federal mandate, the Legislature enacted W. Va.Code, 54-3-3 [1972] which makes the federal real property acquisition policies applicable to state agencies and gives state agencies `plenary power and authority to adopt rules and regulations, which shall have the force and effect of law, to implement the provisions of . . . [the] federal act . . . '). Thus, the foregoing demonstrates that, contrary to the majority's conclusion, consideration of federal law is necessary to resolve the issues raised in connection with this petition for writ of prohibition. B. Pre-condemnation Appraisal Reports Pertaining to Property That Is Subject of Condemnation Proceedings Are Discoverable In accordance with the preceding section, to properly determine whether the DOH should be required to turn over the requested appraisal reports pertaining to Fort Pleasant's property requires examination of the Federal Act. The discoverability of pre-condemnation appraisal reports was squarely addressed by the United States District Court in a condemnation case styled Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. One Parcel of Land in Prince George's County, Maryland, 342 F.Supp.2d 378 (2004). In that case, like the instant case, the defendant landowners made discovery requests seeking the identity of the pre-condemnation appraiser and a copy of the original appraisal report that formed the basis the acquiring agency's determination of just compensation. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (hereinafter WMATA), the acquiring agency, argued that, under Rules 26(b)(3) and 26(b)(4)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant landowners were required to show a `substantial need' or `exceptional circumstances' in order to compel discovery. One Parcel of Land in Prince George's County 342 F.Supp.2d at 380. The district court disagreed, reasoning persuasively that: Section 4651(2) requires WMATA to secure a pre-condemnation appraisal. The introductory paragraph of § 4651 explains that the purpose of the provision is to encourage and expedite the acquisition of real property by agreements with owners, to avoid litigation and relieve congestion in the courts[.] 42 U.S.C. § 4651 (emphasis added). Section 4651(3) requires the Government to make an offer to acquire the property and the clearly stated purpose of this provision is the avoidance of litigation. Id.; see also 27 Am.Jur.2d Eminent Domain § 441 (2004) (The purpose of a statutory requirement that a public body engage in bona fide negotiations with the owner prior to condemning is to encourage public entities to acquire property without litigation, thereby saving both the public and the condemnee the expense and delay of a court action, while permitting the landowner to receive just compensation.). Therefore, this Court concludes, as a matter of law, that the offer and the underlying appraisal cannot be considered documents and tangible things . . . prepared in anticipation of litigation [.] Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). To conclude otherwise would thwart the intent of Congress in its establishment of a mandatory process specifically designed to avoid litigation. A process designed to avoid litigation can hardly be said to be one in anticipation of litigation. Because Rules 26(b)(3) and 26(b)(4)(B) do not protect this discoverable material, the governing rule is Rule 26(b)(1). This liberal rule permits discovery of any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Perhaps most important, this Rule also states that [r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id; see also United States v. Block 44 Lots 3, 6, 177 F.R.D. 687, 691 (M.D.Fla.1997) (concluding, in a case involving similar facts, that general discovery principles, 42 U.S.C. § 4651 and case law construing it require that the defendant be permitted to discover this information.) Thus, the pre-condemnation appraisal is discoverable, as is information gleaned from discovery aimed at the appraiser's methods and conclusions. One Parcel of Land in Prince George's County at 380-81. [6] Notably, W. Va.Code § 54-3-2 (1972) (Repl.Vol.2000), expresses the same purpose of avoiding litigation as does the language of the introductory paragraph of 42 U.S.C. § 4651. In this regard, W. Va.Code § 54-3-2 states: [t]he purposes of this article are (1) to require the establishment of a uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment by state agencies of persons displaced from property in order that such persons shall not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs designed for the benefit of the public as a whole and (2) to encourage and expedite the acquisition of real property or any interest therein by agreements with persons so as to avoid litigation and relieve congestion in the courts, to assure consistent treatment of persons and promote public confidence in the land acquisition practices of any state agency. Applying the analysis of the One Parcel of Land in Prince George's County court to the instant matter, as a matter of law the pre-condemnation appraisals obtained by the DOH in compliance with the Federal Act are not documents prepared in anticipation of litigation. Like the federal rules, West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) and 26(b)(4)(B) protect information created in anticipation of litigation. [7] Because the pre-condemnation appraisal reports were not created in anticipation of litigation, they are subject to discovery under Rule 26(b)(1), regardless of whether the preparing expert will testify in the condemnation proceedings. Accordingly, the majority erred in granting a writ of prohibition to prohibit discovery of pre-condemnation appraisal reports pertaining to Fort Pleasant's own property. See United States v. Block 44, 177 F.R.D. 692 (M.D.Fl.1997) (concluding that magistrate judge did not err in granting motion to compel discovery of government's pre-condemnation valuation of property).