Yves Teirlynck and Tea Teirlynck Revocable Trust v. Deschutes County Assessor

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
TC-MD 260124N 1
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
YVES TEIRLYNCK AND TEA
TEIRLYNCK REVOCABLE TRUST
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, TC-MD 260124N
v.
DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSESSOR ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY	Defendant.
This matter came before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, seeking
documents in Defendant’s possession, and Defendant’s Motion for Discovery, seeking a site
inspection. Plaintiff appeals the value of property identified as Account 132471 (subject
property) for the 2025-26 tax year. (Compl at 1, 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff appeals the valuation
of a pole barn on the subject property for which exception value was added. (Id.) Prior to this
appeal, Plaintiff appealed to the Property Value Appeals Board (PVAB), which reduced the
subject property’s 2025-26 real market value (RMV) and exception value (EV).
A. Procedural History
On April 20, 2026, Defendant filed a Motion for Discovery (Defendant’s Motion),
incorporated within its Answer. In its Motion, Defendant asked the court to permit Defendant to
conduct a site inspection of all structures on the subject property. On May 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed
a Motion to Compel Discovery (Plaintiff’s Motion), asking the court to compel Defendant to
produce certain documents, records, notes, and communications. The parties filed a series of
responses and replies between May 7, 2026, and May 12, 2026. Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of
its Motion filed May 12, 2026, narrowed the scope of the documents requested.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
TC-MD 260124N 2
The parties participated in a case management conference on May 26, 2026, and agreed
to limit the site inspection to the pole barn. (See Journal Entry at 1.) In a letter to the court dated
June 10, 2026, Defendant reported compliance with Plaintiff’s discovery request and requested
to expand the scope of the site inspection beyond the pole barn, based on the possibility of
omitted property. (Def’s Ltr, June 10, 2026.) On June 17, 2026, Plaintiff replied with additional
information concerning the possible omitted property. (Ptf’s Ltr, June 17, 2026.) By letter dated
June 22, 2026, the court requested an update on the status of discovery by July 6, 2026.
On July 6, 2026, the parties filed letters1 with the court reporting that neither discovery
dispute is resolved. Plaintiff again requested documents from Defendant in four categories: 1)
communications with contractors; 2) documents related to the Johnson Ranch Road property; 3)
documents supporting the original tax assessment; and 4) documents relating to the appraisers’
credentials. (Ptf’s Ltr at 1, July 6, 2026.) Defendant repeated its request for “a full inspection of
the entire property.” (Def’s Ltr, July 6, 2026.) The court addresses the parties’ motions below.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion – Document Production
As noted above, Plaintiff has requested four categories of documents from Defendant.
Although Defendant may have produced some documents, Defendant filed objections based on
work-product doctrine and relevance. (See Def’s Resp to Mot to Compel.)
Tax Court Rule-Magistrate Division (TCR-MD) 9 A requires parties to make available
any “relevant” documents requested in writing by the opposing party. A motion to compel
discovery in the Magistrate Division must “specify the items [the moving party] seeks” and
“provide reasons for the request.” TCR-MD 9 B(1). The Regular Division Rules (TCR) permit
parties to “inquire regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense
1 Defendant submitted one letter and Plaintiff submitted two.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
TC-MD 260124N 3
of the party seeking discovery[.]” TCR 36 B(1).2 A party may not object to a discovery request
on the basis that it will be inadmissible at trial provided it is “reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. “Relevant evidence” is “evidence having any tendency
to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more
probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” ORS 40.150.3 Here, the
ultimate issue is the subject property’s 2025-26 RMV. Therefore, Plaintiff’s requests are
relevant if they lead to the discovery of items that have a “tendency to make the existence of any
fact that is of consequence” to the determination of RMV more or less probable. ORS 40.150.
With those standards in mind, the court addresses each of the four document categories.
1. Defendant’s communications with contractors
Plaintiff requests “the underlying specifications, descriptions, and communications
provided by [Defendant] to each of the three contractor contacts — 1] SSA/Jason Sutterfield, 2]
Cascade Mountain/Scott, and 3] Helios Industries — before and during the solicitation of the
cost figures that formed the entire foundation of [Defendant’s] PVAB valuation.” (Ptf’s Ltr at 1,
July 6, 2026.) Defendant claims the documents requested are protected work product and
therefore are not discoverable. (Def’s Resp at 2.)
Once a taxpayer appeals to PVAB, “opinions of value are developed and presented in
connection with litigation.” Susbauer Rd. LLC v. Washington County Assessor, TC-MD
230056N, 2023 WL 5814377 at *3 (Or Tax M Div, Sept 7, 2023). However, Plaintiff argues that
it is entitled to facts collected by Defendant’s appraiser, not opinions or mental impressions.
2 Although the parties have not requested that the court adopt the Regular Division discovery rules, the
court uses them here as a guide. (See Preface to TCR-MD.)
3 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2023.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
TC-MD 260124N 4
Here, Plaintiff seeks to discover “whether [Defendant] described the same structure to its
contractors that actually exists on [the] property.” (Ptf’s Ltr at 1-2, July 6, 2026.) Plaintiff
states: “[w]ithout knowing what specifications were provided to each contractor, it is impossible
to evaluate whether the resulting figures are comparable to the subject structure at all.” (Id. at 1.)
Defendant’s communications with the contractors and the information provided to them were in
anticipation of litigation at the PVAB hearing. Such information is protected work product.
Plaintiff’s request is denied.
2. Documents for Johnson Ranch Road Property
Plaintiff’s second request is for “the cost data and supporting documentation for the
Johnson Ranch Rd property used as the upper bracket in the PVAB handout.” (Ptf’s Ltr at 2,
July 6, 2026 .) Defendant objects because the request is overbroad and includes documents
already in Plaintiff’s possession. (Def’s Resp at 6-7.) Plaintiff disagrees, asserting that Plaintiff
does not “possess the full address, tax account, owner identity, permit records, contractor
identity, or cost breakdown for that property.” (Ptf’s Ltr at 2, July 6, 2026.)
Records kept in the regular course of business and not produced specifically in
anticipation of litigation are generally discoverable. Brink v. Multnomah County, 224 Or 507,
517, 356 P2d 536, 540 (1960). Defendant maintains property records that are kept in the
ordinary course of its assessment function. Assessors maintain databases of properties, including
addresses, property descriptions, sales information, and visual representations. While some of
this information may be available to the general public through an online search, Plaintiff could
not have obtained this information without the property’s address or account number.
Plaintiff’s request is granted. To the extent the requested documents regarding Johnson
Ranch Road were kept in the ordinary course of business, Defendant must produce them.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
TC-MD 260124N 5
3. Documents supporting original assessment
Plaintiff’s third request is for “the methodology and work papers underlying the original
$125,960 assessment of the pole barn, including the specific DOR cost factor table, property
classification code, and local modifier applied.” (Ptf’s Ltr at 2, July 6, 2026.) Defendant claims
these records are irrelevant because the PVAB valuations superseded the original roll values.
(Def’s Resp at 2-3; Decl of Stephanie Marshall at Ex A.) Defendant argues the requested
documents are “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Id.)
As stated, the Magistrate Division permits discovery of “relevant documents.” TCR-MD
9 A. This court has a “low discretionary threshold” for relevance and has shown leniency in this
regard. See 5 SE Mlk Blvd LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor, TC-MD 240415N, 2024 WL
4891637 at *1 (Or Tax M Div, Nov 26, 2024) (allowing discovery of a 15-month old appraisal
report notwithstanding valid concerns about its probative value); see also Mughal v. Dept. of
Rev., TC 5458, 2024 WL 4341411 at *14 (Or Tax, Sept 27, 2024) (an appraisal report with an
effective date two to four years before the assessment date met “the low discretionary threshold
to be considered as evidence under the ‘substantial justice’ standard, notwithstanding substantial
gaps in [its] persuasive value”).
Plaintiff’s request is granted. Defendant shall produce the documents it relied upon for
the original 2025-26 tax roll assessment of the subject property.
4. Appraiser credentials
Plaintiff’s fourth and final request is for “documentation confirming the registered
appraiser status and continuing education compliance of the appraiser(s) who performed or
contributed to the valuation under ORS 308.010 and ORS 308.231.” (Ptf’s Ltr at 2, July 6,
2026.) Defendant objects to these requests as “an impermissible personal attack on individual

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
TC-MD 260124N 6
appraiser(s) in Defendant’s office” and a “fishing expedition for evidence that is not relevant to
Defendant’s valuation of Plaintiff’s pole barn.” (Def’s Resp at 4.)
The credibility of experts is relevant under Oregon law. In Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
Benton County Assessor, the court found that, “to decide a property’s real market value, the Tax
Court often resolves fact issues relating to the competing testimony of appraisal experts,
including the credibility and persuasiveness of those experts.” 357 Or 598, 609, 356 P3d 70
(2015). In Astoria Plywood Corp. v. Department of Revenue, the court considered whether a
witness acted as a “trained, independent, knowledgeable property tax appraiser.” 7 OTR 265,
272 (1977). This information is not protected work product and is relevant to this proceeding.
Plaintiff’s request is granted. Defendant shall produce the appraisers’ credentialing
information requested by Plaintiff.
C. Defendant’s Motion – Site Inspection
Defendant initially requested a site inspection of all structures on the subject property.
(Ans at 2-3.) During the case management conference on May 26, 2026, Defendant agreed to
limit the site inspection to the pole barn. (See Journal Entry at 1.) However, in its July 6, 2026,
letter to this court, Defendant again requested “a full inspection of the entire property” due to
concerns regarding “the tone and demands in [Plaintiff’s] email” dated July 3, 2026, and attached
to the letter—concerns Defendant also raised in a June 10, 2026, letter to this court.4 (Def’s Ltr
at 1, July 6, 2026.) Plaintiff agrees to the pole barn inspection but objects to a full site
inspection, claiming “this is the third occasion on which [Defendant] has agreed to or confirmed
4 The precise nature of Defendant’s concerns are not entirely clear but appear to pertain to the possibility of
additional improvements made to the subject property. (Def’s Ltr, June 10, 2026.) Defendant initially stated that
the subject property might include a swimming pool omitted from the tax roll. (Id.) However, Defendant’s
subsequent letter to the court made no mention of a swimming pool. (Def’s Ltr, July 6, 2026.)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
TC-MD 260124N 7
a barn-only inspection scope and then sought to expand it.” (Ptf’s Second Ltr at 2, July 6, 2026.)
(Emphasis in original.)
A site inspection is typically part of discovery when the value of real property is at issue.
See Poddar v. Dept. of Rev., 328 Or 552, 562, 983 P2d 527 (1999) (inspection “reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”); see also Salisbury v. Dept. of Rev.,
24 OTR 497, 510 (2021) (inspection allows each party to gather facts about the value of the
property to present to the court so that the court may determine the correct value pursuant to
statute). This court generally grants a site inspection in valuation cases even where the taxpayer
argues that Defendant has sufficient information from a prior inspection conducted to prepare for
a PVAB hearing. See Yarbrough v. Marion County Assessor, TC-MD 250214N, 2025 WL
3089777 at *2 (Or Tax M Div, Nov 5, 2025). If Plaintiff disagrees with the analysis and
conclusions Defendant presents after its inspection, its remedy is “to point out any flaws,
attempted overreach, or overlooked facts in [Defendant’s] appraisal, and to present and
substantiate [its] own set of facts and conclusions.” Salisbury, 4 OTR at 511-12.
The valuation of the pole barn is at issue in this case, and an inspection of that structure is
reasonable. However, a concerning tone in Plaintiff’s correspondence is not a valid reason to
grant an inspection of the entire property, as Defendant requests. Defendant has not articulated a
well-founded reason to justify granting a full inspection. Therefore, the court declines to grant
Defendant’s request at this time. Plaintiff shall allow an inspection of the pole barn.
D. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Defendant’s Motion is
granted in part and denied in part. Defendant will produce all responsive, non-privileged
documents in its possession, custody, or control relating to: 1) documents related to the Johnson

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
TC-MD 260124N 8
Ranch Road property; 2) documents supporting the original property tax assessment; and 3)
documents related to the appraisers’ credentials. Plaintiff will allow Defendant to conduct a site
inspection of the pole barn on the subject property. Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant
will produce the requested documents by July 28, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is granted in part and denied in
part. Plaintiff will allow Defendant to conduct a site inspection of the pole barn on the subject
property by July 28, 2026.
This interim order may not be appealed. Any claim of error in regard to this
order should be raised in an appeal of the Magistrate’s final written decision
when all issues have been resolved. ORS 305.501.
This Order was signed by Presiding Magistrate Allison R. Boomer and entered
on July 10, 2026.