Cited by

The purpose of the MGDPA is “to reconcile the rights of data subjects to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure with the right of the public to know what the government is doing.” Montgomery Ward &

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. County of Hennepin

Montgomery Ward & –06 (Minn. 1990).

28, 1993); Montgomery Ward & (same).

For instance, the underlying purpose of the Act is to protect “the right of the public to know what the government is doing.” Montgomery Ward & see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16(4) (2020) (permitting this court, in the absence of clear language, to consider “the object to be attained” by the statute).

tes section 13.03, 5 subdivision 6, which courts use to determine when nonpublic government data may be disclosed.2 First, in Montgomery Ward & Co. v. County of Hennepin, we held that the Data Practices Act balancing test was mandatory after the taxpayer had moved to compel discovery of nonpublic data from the County, in accordance with the plain language of section 13.03, subdivision 6.3

Chambers also relied on the County’s inability to answer questions about its mass appraisal process as applied to self-storage facilities and asserted that a valuation process based on the number of units in the facility was improper, 5 See Montgomery Ward & (explaining that the market approach, also known as the “sales approach,” considers market data on recent sales of comparable properties and that the income approach capitalizes the expected income and expenses for the property).

Montgomery Ward & -06 (Minn. 1990).

of Hennepin, (holding that the sales approach is “questionable” as applied to anchor department stores because they rarely sell and because the price often includes “fixtures and inventory”).

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. County of Hennepin , see also Westminster Corp. v. Anderson , (reviewing de novo whether acceptance of housing assistance payments constituted waiver of landlord’s right to terminate lease), review denied (Minn. Oct.

“[W]aiver is a voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” Montgomery Ward &

of Hennepin, (“Rarely is one appraiser’s methodology and opinion accepted in its entirety by the Court.”).

of Hennepin, (ordering the tax court to conduct a new trial and admit additional evidence).

of Hennepin, (ordering the tax court to conduct a new trial, order discovery, and admit additional evidence).

of Hennepin, (quoting Donald A. Gemberling & Gary A. Weissman, Data Privacy: Everything You Wanted to Know About the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act —From “A” to “Z,” 8 Wm.

of Hennepin, Westling v. Cnty.

• A district court’s denial of a motion to stay discovery will not be reversed unless the court “abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.” Montgomery Ward & Co., (holding that *763 a reversal based on abuse of discretion requires “a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record”).

*275 Montgomery Ward & Co. v. County of Hennepin (Ward)

When a district court has discretion, it will not be reversed unless it “abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.” Montgomery Ward &amp

Through the MGDPA, the legislature intended to balance the privacy rights of the data subjects with the public’s right “to know what the government is doing * * * within a context of effective government operation.” Montgomery Ward & Co., (quotation omitted).

See Montgomery Ward & -04 (Minn.1990).

Montgomery Ward & -06 (Minn.1990).

Montgomery Ward & Co., American Express, d at 657 .