author: PAGE, Justice. ANDERSON, Paul H., Justice ANDERSON, G. Barry, J. BLATZ, Chief Justice

text:
    Sheryl L. DOUGHERTY, Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
    No. A03-1866.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    July 14, 2005.

      Steven R. Schwegman, Mary B. Mahler, Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A., St. Cloud, MN, for Appellant.
    Timothy W. Nelson, Nathan W. Nelson, Nelson Personal Injury Attorneys, St. Cloud, MN, for Respondent.
    Michael A. Bryant, Bradshaw & Bryant, P.L.L.C., Waite Park, MN, for Amicus Curiae Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association.
   OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

This case requires us to review a court of appeals decision affirming a Stearns County district court judgment in which the district court concluded that injuries sustained by respondent Sheryl Dougherty, an insured of appellant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (State Farm), arose out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle and that Dougherty was therefore entitled to no-fault insurance benefits. Because we conclude that Dougherty’s injuries were a natural consequence of her use of a vehicle, we affirm.

Dougherty’s injuries occurred on December 17, 2000, when she left a bar after a night of drinking and attempted to drive approximately 10 blocks to her apartment. Although the actual air temperature at the time is not in the record, the temperature, including wind chill, was minus 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Before reaching her destination, Dougherty’s car became stuck in a snowdrift. When she could not get the car out of the snowdrift, she exited the car, locked its doors — with her keys, hat, and gloves still inside- — and attempted to walk the remaining distance, approximately 330 feet, to her apartment. In the process, she had to use her hands and arms to push herself through a snowbank created by a snowplow. Once on the other side of the snowbank, she slipped and fell on the ice in the parking lot adjacent to her apartment building and was unable to regain her footing.

Dougherty, who crawled on the ice for some period of time, eventually took refuge out of the wind near the side of a garage and might have fallen asleep. At some point, she proceeded to crawl the rest of the way to her door, arriving there 30 to 40 minutes after she left her car. As a result of being exposed to the elements without protection, Dougherty sustained severe frostbite, which led to the amputation of a number of her fingers.

Dougherty sought benefits from her no-fault insurance carrier, State Farm. State Farm denied coverage, contending that her injuries did not arise “out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle” as required under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (No-Fault Act). Minn.Stat. § 65B.46, subd. 1 (2004). On September 17, 2001, Dougherty commenced the instant lawsuit against State Farm to obtain payment of no-fault benefits. After discovery, the parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment, which the district court denied. After a jury trial, the jury responded to four special interrogatories as follows:

1. Was there a snowbank, or other significant weather-related condition which impeded Sheryl Dougherty’s ability to proceed directly to her apartment? Yes.
2. Once Plaintiff knew she couldn’t get back into her car, were Plaintiffs activities solely directed at getting to a place of safety? Yes.
3. Were such activities reasonably carried out? No.
4. Did Sheryl Dougherty lock her car on purpose? Yes.

The district court then entered judgment in favor of Dougherty, concluding that her injuries arose out of the use and operation of her motor vehicle because they were a natural consequence of her use of the vehicle and no independent act broke the chain of causation. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that because Dougherty’s frostbite injuries were sustained, after her vehicle became stuck in the snow, they were a natural consequence of her use of the vehicle. Dougherty v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 683 N.W.2d 855, 860 (Minn.App.2004).

The No-Fault Act provides “economic loss benefits” for injuries “arising out of maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.” Minn.Stat. § 65B.46, subd. 1. The phrase “maintenance or use of a motor vehicle” is further defined by statute as “maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a vehicle, including, incident to its maintenance or use as a vehicle, occupying, entering into, and alighting from it.” Minn.Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 3 (2004). Whether an injury arises out of the maintenance or use of a motor, vehicle is a question of law, which we review de novo. N. River Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 346 N.W.2d 109, 113 n. 2 (Minn.1984).

In Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Klug, we stated that whether “an accident arises out of the use or maintenance of an automobile is a recurring question which defies a simple test.” 415 N.W.2d 876, 877 (Minn.1987). Recognizing that “each case presenting such a question must, to a great degree, turn on the particular facts presented,” we identified three factors for consideration when determining whether an accident arose out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle:

1. the extent of causation between the automobile and the injury;
2. whether an act of independent significance occurred, breaking the causal link between “use” of the vehicle and the injuries inflicted; and
3. whether the automobile was being used for transportation purposes.

Id. at 877-78.

A causal connection between the injury and the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle is established if “the injury is a. natural and reasonable incident or consequence” of the vehicle’s use. N. River Ins. Co., 346 N.W.2d at 114 (quoting Tlougan v. Auto-Owners Ins.. Co., 310 N.W.2d 116, 117 (Minn.1981)). That is to say, the vehicle must have been an “active accessory” in causing the injury. Klug, 415 N.W.2d.at 878. This causation standard' requires “something less than proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury.” Id. (quoting Tlougan, 310 N.W.2d at 117).

The phrase “arising out of’ is broadly construed. Associated, Indep. Dealers, Inc. v. Mut. Serv. Ins. Cos., 304 Minn. 179, 183, 229 N.W.2d 516, 519 (1975) (“[T]he term ‘arising out of the use’ of the insured vehicle is broad in scope * * 8D John A. Appleman & Jean Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 5171.55, at 48 (Supp.2001). “Arising out of’ generally means “originating from,” “growing out of,” or “flowing from.” Associated Indep. Dealers, 304 Minn, at 182, 229 N.W.2d at 518; 8 Lee R. Russ & Thomas T. Segalla, Couch on Insurance § 119.33, at 119-50 (3d ed.1997).

State Farm contends that the evidence presented at trial establishes that Dougherty’s encounter with one or more premises hazards, as opposed to the maintenance or use of her vehicle, caused her injuries. Specifically, State Farm argues that the snowbank and icy parking lot caused Dougherty to be exposed to the elements for an extended period of time, not the maintenance or use of her vehicle. In support of this argument, State Farm relies on our decision in Marklund v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 400 N.W.2d 337 (Minn.1987), and the court of appeals’ decision in Christensen v. General Accident Insurance, 482 N.W.2d 510 (Minn.App.), rev. denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).

In Marklund, the plaintiff sustained injuries at a self-service gas station when he slipped and fell on ice after he had completed filling his vehicle with gas and was walking around the vehicle to get a check from his wife so he could pay for the gas. 400 N.W.2d at 338. In considering the existence of a causal connection between the injury and the use of the vehicle for transportation, we concluded that the “injury was not a natural and reasonable consequence of the use of the vehicle, nor was the vehicle an active accessory of the patron’s injuries.” Id. at 340. Instead, we said that Marklund’s injury “was a result of a premises hazard completely unrelated to the use or repair or maintenance of his vehicle” and the “presence of his automobile, at the very best, was only incidentally related to his injuries and certainly did not provide the necessary causal nexus.” Id. at 341. We based this conclusion on the fact that Marklund had finished pumping gas at the time he slipped and fell on the ice. Id. at 340. Thus, we held that Mark-lund’s injuries did not arise out of the “maintenance” of a motor vehicle and noted that “[pjremises hazards giving rise to slips, falls, and consequential injuries fall outside the parameters of hazards whose costs should be allocated to the activity of motoring.” Id. at 341.

In Christensen, the issue was whether Christensen was “alighting from” her vehicle at the time of her fall. 482 N.W.2d at 512. Christensen exited the passenger side of the vehicle she was riding in and placed her hand on the vehicle to steady herself as she walked to the front of the vehicle on an icy street. Id. at 511. In the process, she fell, sustaining injuries. Id. The court of appeals concluded that an injured party completes “alighting from” a vehicle when she intends to undertake a new activity and evidences that intention by an overt act and held that Christensen was not “alighting from” her vehicle at the time she slipped and fell. Id. at 512-13.

The court of appeals in this case distinguished Marklund and Christensen on the basis that, in both of those cases, the intended use of the vehicle had been completed before the injuries occurred, but in this case Dougherty’s intended use of the vehicle had not been completed when the vehicle became stuck in the snowdrift. Dougherty, 683 N.W.2d at 860. Specifically, the court of appeals stated:

Because the hazards of winter are a fundamental part of the driving experience, it is a foreseeable condition of vehicle use that vehicles may become disabled on the road due to snow or ice, and drivers may be exposed to injury in attempting, sometimes unreasonably, to provide for their safety. * * * [Respondent’s frostbite injuries, which were sustained after her vehicle became stuck in the snow, are a natural consequence of the use of her motor vehicle.

Id.; see also Clapp v. Physicians Health Plan of Minn., No. CO-91-2374, 1992 WL 95890, at *3 (Minn.App. May 12, 1992) (unpublished) (holding that when a paraplegic driver fell while entering his specially equipped vehicle, was unable to pull himself into the vehicle or his wheelchair, and sustained frostbite injuries during the time it took him to drag himself from the vehicle to the house, the injuries “arose out of’ the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle).

Dougherty argues that the “act of getting stuck in a snow bank, combined with the preexisting weather conditions, gave rise to a dangerous situation” and that she “did not encounter the dangerous cold, snow, and ice in a situation wholly dissociated from and unrelated to her use of her vehicle.” Thus, Dougherty argues that, “[ujnlike the unrelated slip-and-fall in Markhmd, the act of getting stuck in the snow and becoming stranded is undoubtedly one of the ‘risks associated with motoring,’ especially in the state of Minnesota.” In essence, Dougherty argues that because her use of the vehicle placed her in a hazardous situation, her injuries arose out of the maintenance or use of the motor vehicle.

With these arguments, we are faced with the question of whether Dougherty’s encounter with the snowbank and icy parking lot and her consequent injuries are a “natural and reasonable incident or consequence”- of her use of her motor vehicle. Despite State Farm’s focus on the existence of premises hazards, an injury caused in part by premises hazards is not always unrelated to the risks of motoring. For example, in Nadeau v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co., we held that when the plaintiff was injured when she slipped on ice in her driveway while avoiding a vehicle driving toward her the injuries “arose out of’ the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. 350 N.W.2d 368, 371 (Minn.1984). We noted that there was “no merit” to-the claim that the plaintiffs injury was caused solely by the slippery conditions of her driveway because, although she sustained the injury by slipping and falling, “she did so while retreating from the street to avoid [the] oncoming vehicle.” Id. at 371. In examining the results in Marklund, Christensen, and Nadeau, it is apparent that the determinative issue is not whether a “premises hazard” was involved, but the degree of causation between the use of the vehicle and the injury. See also Klug, 415 N.W.2d at 877-78 (finding a sufficient causal connection between the insured’s injuries and the use of the vehicle, although a shotgun blast was the direct instrument of harm).

When a vehicle is stranded due to weather conditions or other emergency, it is a “natural and reasonable incident or consequence” of the use of the vehicle that the driver leaves the vehicle to seek help or safety. Viking Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Coleman, 927 P.2d 661, 665 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (holding that there was a causal nexus between the maintenance or use of the vehicle and the accident in a case in which the driver, returning to his stalled vehicle, tripped and fell into oncoming traffic while crossing a median on foot and caused a passing truck to hit the median and rollover); Falls v. N.C. Farm, Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 114 N.C.App. 203, 441 S.E.2d 583, 585 (1994) (concluding that a person walking on the shoulder of a road in search of mechanical assistance after the vehicle he was driving broke down was “using” the vehicle when struck by another vehicle); Aryainejad v. Econ. Fire & Cas. Co., 278 Ill.App.3d 1049, 215 Ill.Dec. 593, 663 N.E.2d 1107, 1111 (1996) (concluding that the plaintiffs injuries sustained when swerving his vehicle to avoid a driver walking down the interstate to a gas station after the driver’s vehicle ran out of gas arose out of the driver’s use of his vehicle); see also Baker v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 460 N.W.2d 86, 87 (Minn.App.1990) (noting that the parties stipulated that Baker’s death arose out of the maintenance or use of a vehicle when she died of exposure and hypothermia after her vehicle became stuck in a ditch in subzero temperatures). In contrast to Marklund, where we concluded that the presence of the vehicle was only incidentally related to injury, we conclude here that the requisite causal connection between Dougherty’s injuries and her use of the vehicle is established because it is a “natural and reasonable incident or consequence” of the use of a vehicle in Minnesota in the winter that a vehicle may become lodged in a snowdrift and the driver may attempt to seek safety, as Dougherty did here.

Next, we turn to State Farm’s argument that Dougherty’s intoxication constituted an act of independent significance that broke the chain of causation between the use of the vehicle and her injuries. We note that State Farm did not cite, either in its brief or at oral argument, any legal authority for this argument. Nor were we able to find any such authority. The court of appeals concluded that treating intoxication as an act breaking the chain of causation between Dougherty’s injury and the use of her vehicle would “impermissibly blame her for her injuries,” which would be inconsistent with the No-Fault Act. Dougherty, 683 N.W.2d at 858-59 (relying on- Minn.Stat. § 65B.42(1) (2004)). We agree with the court of appeals. Section 65B.42(1) provides that automobile insurers are to make payments required by the No-Fault Act “without regard to whose fault caused the accident.” The language of the No-Fault Act does not exclude coverage for drivers whose intoxication caused the accident. While driving under the influence is a serious problem in this state and may constitute a crime, as it did in this case, it is not this court’s role to ignore the express language of the statute to accommodate the public policy concerns raised by State Farm. That is the legislature’s role. See Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 99, 83 N.W.2d 800, 812 (1957). Thus, we affirm the court of appeals and hold that Dough-erty’s intoxication does not constitute an act of independent significance that broke the chain of causation between the use of her vehicle and her injuries.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, Paul H., Justice

(concurring).

I concur with the majority’s reasoning and result; nevertheless, I write separately because I believe it important to acknowledge how tempting it is to agree with the dissent’s result given the troublesome facts in this case. But bad facts often make bad law.

The dissent concludes that Dougherty’s injuries are not covered under Minnesota’s No-Fault Act because her injuries were not caused by the “normal incidents of motoring.” Because both the majority and dissent acknowledge that injuries occurring when a motor vehicle is stranded in dangerous conditions can give rise to no-fault benefits, the only possible basis for the dissent’s conclusion that the injuries did not arise out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle is that -Dougherty was intoxicated — bad facts. Concluding, as the dissent does, that Dougherty’s injuries are unrelated .to the normal incidents of motoring would jeopardize legitimate claims to no-fault benefits when Minnesota motorists are stranded in dangerous conditions — bad law. Our No-Fault Act does not contemplate fault and intoxication is clearly related to fault. While Dougherty’s intoxication should not be condoned, here it is simply not relevant to the No-Fault Act. What is relevant is that Dough-erty’s use of her vehicle placed her in a dangerous situation — stranded and exposed to the bitter cold — and she was injured while removing herself from that dangerous situation.

ANDERSON, G. Barry, J.

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. It is challenging, to say the least, to review our jurisprudence and determine where to properly draw the line on a maintenance and use of a motor vehicle issue involving the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn.Stat. § 65B.41-65B.71 (2004). Nonetheless, I conclude after a thorough review of the record that respondent’s injuries are not reasonably attributable to the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.

Minnesota’s No-Fault Act provides that “every person suffering loss' from injury arising out of maintenance or use - of a motor vehicle * * * has a right to basic economic loss benefits.” Minn.Stat. § 65B.46, subd. 1 (2004) (emphasis added). “Maintenance or use of a motor vehicle” is defined as “maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a Vehicle, including, incident to its maintenance or use as a vehicle, occupying, entering into, and alighting from it.” Minn.Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 3 (2004). The required causal connection between maintenance or use of the vehicle and injury is something more than that the vehicle was the mere situs of the injury, but is something less than proximate cause in the tort sense. Continental W. Ins. Co. v. Klug, 415 N.W.2d 876, 878 (Minn.1987).

While it is difficult to draw the line between covered injuries and injuries too tenuously connected to the motor vehicle to warrant the protection of the No-Fault Act, defining maintenance and use too broadly undermines the policies of the Act. In Marklund, we noted the importance of limiting the definition of injuries arising out of maintenance and use of a motor vehicle to those injuries that, according to the policies of the Act, should be allocated to the costs of motoring. Marklund v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 400 N.W.2d 337, 339 (Minn.1987). We cited the Commissioner’s Comments to the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act, on which Minnesota’s No-Fault Act is modeled, and stated:

In some cases * * * it is arguable that courts have included accidents too far removed from the general activity of motoring and that a narrower construction of the term would be more consistent with the policy of this Act. Other than specifying that injury arise out of maintenance or use “as a vehicle,” it has not been possible to define the general concept more specifically, so borderline cases are left to the courts, as they have been under current automobile policies.

Marklund, 400 N.W.2d at 339 n. 4 (citing Commissioner’s Comments, Unif. Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act § 1, 14 U.L.A. 56 (1980)). Thus, some cases are simply too far removed from motoring to be included in the scope of the no-fault system. The No-Fault Act seeks to ameliorate the distress of automobile accident victims. See Minn.Stat. § 65B.42 (2004); Galle v. Excalibur Ins. Co., 317 N.W.2d 368 (Minn.1982).

We have said that causation may be framed in terms of whether the vehicle is “an accessory” to the injuries sustained. Holm v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 261 N.W.2d 598, 603 (Minn.1977). Stated in terms of exclusion, a vehicle that is not an accessory to the injury is a “mere situs” of the injury. Nat’l. Family Ins. Co. v. Boyer, 269 N.W.2d 10, 14-15 (Minn.1978).

Here, we cannot say that Dougherty’s vehicle is “an accessory” to her injuries. Dougherty lodged her vehicle in a snow bank approximately 300 feet from her apartment building. Her injuries may be attributable to many different causes, including falling asleep outside with a wind chill of 45 degrees below zero, apparent inability to negotiate icy walking conditions or perhaps even her intoxication, but her use of the vehicle was entirely incidental to the injuries sustained.

The heart of the majority opinion is found in the conclusion that the causal connection between Dougherty’s injuries and the use of her vehicle “is established because it is a ‘natural and reasonable incident or consequence’ of the use of a vehicle in Minnesota in the winter because a vehicle may become lodged in a snowdrift and the driver may attempt to seek safety, as Dougherty did here.”

But there is no precedent remotely supporting Dougherty’s claim for benefits under the Minnesota No-Fault Act and what little relevant law exists tends to support the conclusion that there is no causal link between Dougherty’s injuries and her use of the vehicle. For example, in Marklund, as the majority notes, we concluded that the slip and fall injury was a result of a premises hazard and there was no causal connection to the maintenance of a motor vehicle. Marklund, 400 N.W.2d at 341. Marklund was walking to a cashier to pay for gasoline he had pumped when his slip and fall accident occurred. Id. at 340. Here, Dougherty’s injuries also resulted from a premises hazard — icy walking conditions — encountered as she walked from her disabled vehicle to her apartment building.

In Holm, a police officer pursued a plaintiff in a municipal police car, left the vehicle and committed a battery on the plaintiff. 261 N.W.2d at 599, 602. Noting that the police officer “used the police car only as a means of transportation to the scene of the arrest and battery,” and that the officer was “physically separated from the vehicle” at the time of injury, we held that the vehicle was not an “accessory” to the battery and thus the causal connection was broken. Id. at 603-04. Indeed, in the present dispute, Dougherty not only left the vehicle, she locked the doors of the vehicle, arguably abandoning it, a circumstance not present in Holm.

I acknowledge that Holm involved an intentional battery not present here and thus the comparison is far from exact; Holm and Dougherty’s circumstances, however, share this in common — the injury at issue was not attributable to the use of a motor vehicle. While it is certainly possible to envision fact patterns that involve stranded motor vehicles in dangerous circumstances, and a resulting conclusion that notwithstanding separation from the vehicle benefits under the Minnesota No-Fault Act are awardable, Dougherty’s injuries were not caused by anything remotely related to the normal incidents of motoring and extending the protection of the No-Fault Act to these circumstances eviscerates the policies of the Act.

I conclude that Dougherty's injuries are not the “natural and reasonable incident or consequence” of her use of her motor vehicle and I would reverse the court of appeals.

BLATZ, Chief Justice

(dissenting).

I join in the dissent of Justice G. Barry Anderson.

      . The question of maintenance or use of the police vehicle in Holm involved the city's liability insurance policy and not the Minnesota No-Fault Act. We have stated that, as opposed to private insurance contracts, a narrower definition of maintenance and use under the No-Fault Act serves the policies of the Act. See Marklund, 400 N.W.2d at 339.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: HANSON, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In the Matter of GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC.
    Nos. A04-2150, A04-2151.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    July 14, 2005.

      Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Michael J. Vanselow, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for Appellant.
    Michael A. Lindsay, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, MN, George S. Carey, Sara D. Schotland, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Charles R. Shreffler, Mohrman & Kaar-dal, Minneapolis, MN, Margaret M. Zwis-ler, Elizabeth B. McCallum, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
    Mark R. Anfinson, Minneapolis, MN, for Amicus Minnesota Newspaper Association.

      . To the extent that our determination of whether the state’s rights are substantial involves consideration of the likelihood that the state will prevail on the merits of the appeal, we observe that the district court’s analysis underlying the CID order may not have been complete. The district court's conclusion that the state’s request was precluded by the Protective Order or the Confidentiality Agreement does not consider that both documents specifically authorized the state to object to GSK's confidentiality designations and to seek district court review. The conclusion that the documents are not "inactive investigative data” under the MGDPA may answer the wrong question. The classification of inactive investigation data is relevant when a civil action is not brought. Minn.Stat. § 13.39, subd. 3 (2004). The pertinent question under the MGDPA may be whether commencement of the Ramsey County action makes the investigative data public. Id., subd. 2a. And the conclusion that there is a First Amendment privilege for "petitioning documents” is not clearly recognized in case law.

   OPINION

HANSON, Justice.

We review orders of the court of appeals dismissing two appeals by appellant State of Minnesota from an order of the Henne-pin County District Court determining that certain discovery documents produced pursuant to a Civil Investigative Demand were confidential and could not be made public. The court of appeals denied discretionary review under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 105.01 and a separate panel then dismissed the appeal of right under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03. We granted the state’s petitions for review of both orders and consolidated the matters. We reverse the dismissal of the appeal of right and remand to the court of appeals for consideration of the merits.

A Civil Investigative Demand (CID) is a discovery tool provided by statute to aid the state in the investigation of suspected violations of Minnesota laws. Minnesota Statutes § 8.31, subd. 2 (2004), authorizes the attorney general to

obtain discovery from any person regarding any matter, fact or circumstance, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending investigation, in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision. The discovery may be obtained without commencement of a civil action and without leave of court * * *.

The state served a CID on respondent GlaxoSmithKline pic (GSK), a pharmaceutical company that the state suspected of committing antitrust violations by preventing Canadian pharmacies from supplying prescription drugs to United States consumers. The CID requested the production of documents concerning, among other things, GSK’s sales of drugs in Canada and its communications with Canadian pharmacies that sold drugs in the United States.

Before any documents were produced, GSK and the state entered a Confidentiality Agreement that (1) permitted GSK to mark documents as “confidential” if they contained trade secret information or if GSK could assert “another legal basis for treating the documents as confidential, including * * * commercial information that could be subject to a protective order pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 26.03”; (2) required the state to use confidential documents solely for the “investigation and any litigation arising from the investigation”; and (3) stated that if the state objected to a confidentiality designation or received a third-party request for access to a document, the state would give 10-day notice to GSK and GSK then could move the district court to resolve the issue. The Confidentiality Agreement specified that if the state were to commence litigation, the agreement “shall continue to govern * * * until such time as the Court should modify, terminate, or supersede it.”

After GSK produced some documents, the state brought a motion in the Henne-pin County District Court to compel production of further documents, and GSK countered with a motion for a protective order. The court granted a Protective Order that largely mirrored the Confidentiality Agreement, but also contained a provision stating that confidential documents filed with the court in any resulting litigation must be filed under seal, “pending further Order of the presiding judge in such proceedings.” GSK then produced additional documents — the vast majority of which were marked as “confidential.” The state filed a second motion in Hennepin County District Court for an order declaring that about 45 of those documents were not confidential under the Confidentiality Agreement, the Protective Order, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), MinmStat. ch. 13 (2004), or Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03 (which governs protective orders).

Five days after a hearing on its motion, the state commenced a civil antitrust action against GSK in Ramsey County District Court and provided a copy of the complaint to the judge presiding over the CID proceeding in Hennepin County. On October 13, 2004, the Hennepin County District Court- denied the state’s motion, ruling that the' documents were to remain confidential because (1) civil investigative data do not become “inactive” under the MGDPA when a suit is commenced; (2) the documents were “petitioning documents subject to First Amendment privilege,” thus disclosure was not required under Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03; and (3) public disclosure was not permitted by terms of the Confidential Agreement and the Protective Order (the CID order).

The state appealed the CID order by simultaneously filing a Notice of Appeal and a Petition for Discretionary Review. A three-judge special-term panel of the court of appeals denied discretionary review under Minn. R. CivApp. P. 105.01, holding that the petition “does not establish that the district court’s enforcement of the state’s agreement to maintain confidentiality (even if litigation resulted) warrants discretionary review.” In the Matter of GlaxoSmithKline plc, No. A04-2151 (Minn.App. Dec. 8, 2004).

A separate special-term panel of the court of appeals subsequently granted GSK’s motion to dismiss the state’s appeal of right on grounds that the appeal was taken from a nonappealable order. In the Matter of GlaxoSmithKline pic, No. A04-2150 (MinnApp. Dec. 22, 2004). The court rejected the state’s first argument that the CID order was a final order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding under Minn. R. CivApp. P. 103.03(g). The court held that “[a] motion to compel compliance with a CID under Minn.Stat. § 8.31, subd. 2a, is not a special proceeding because a CID is a pretrial discovery tool, not a remedy.” The court further rejected the state’s arguments that the CID order was appealable under other parts of rule 103.03 — as an injunction under part (b), ■ as a ■ collateral order under part (j), or as an order that determines the action and prevents- a judgment under part (e).

The state submitted two petitions for review to this court, asking us to reinstate the appeal and remand to the. court of appeals. Then, on brief, the state argued that we should decide the merits of the CID order, even though not requested in the petitions for further review. GSK argues that this is not an “exceptional case” warranting departure from our usual procedure to only review issues raised in the petition for further review.

I.

We begin our analysis with the state’s first argument that the CID order was appealable of right as “a final order, decision or judgment affecting a substantial right made in an administrative or other special proceeding.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(g). We apply de novo review to court of appeals’ interpretations of the rules of civil appellate procedure. See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, 646 N.W.2d 235, 238 (Minn.2002).

First, we examine whether the CID order was a “final order” under rule 103.03(g). We have defined a final order as one that “ends the proceeding as far as the court is concerned or that ‘finally determines some positive legal right of the appellant relating to the action.’ ” In re Estate of Janecek, 610 N.W.2d 638, 642 (Minn.2000) (holding that the order disqualifying an attorney in a probate proceeding was a final order, and citing Weinzierl v. Lien, 296 Minn. 539, 540, 209 N.W.2d 424, 424 (1973)). The CID order may be considered final because it determined all issues presented to the court in the CID proceeding. This conclusion parallels federal law, which generally recognizes that orders from proceedings related to CIDs and administrative subpoenas are appealable as “final decisions” of the district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000). Cf. Gordon v. Microsoft Corp., 645 N.W.2d 393, 399-400 (Minn.2002) (examining federal law to determine standards for ap-pealability of class certification orders in Minnesota courts).

Next, we examine whether a “substantial right” is at issue. Rule 103.03(g) does not define substantial right, and our prior interpretations of the words have been fact specific. See In re Janecek, 610 N.W.2d at 642 (indicating that a person has substantial right to be represented by an attorney of one’s choice); In re Trust of Tufford, 275 Minn. 66, 67 n. 1, 145 N.W.2d 59, 60 n. 1 (1966) (holding that right to terminate a trust is a substantial right); see also Douglas D. McFarland & William J. Keppel, Minnesota Civil Practice § 2719 (3d ed.1999) (observing that “the appellate court will rarely find an order in a special proceeding nonappealable on the ground that it does not affect a substantial right ”); Black’s Law Dictionary 1349 (8th ed.2004) (defining substantial right as “[a]n essential right that potentially affects the outcome of a lawsuit and is capable of legal enforcement and protection, as distinguished from a mere technical or procedural right”).

The state suggests that a substantial right is at issue because the order requiring the state to keep the documents confidential will envelop the entire litigation in a “shroud of secrecy,” requiring the trial and any appeals to take place behind closed doors. GSK counters that no substantial right is at issue because the state is not hindered from prosecuting the merits of the antitrust case, and the CID order may be appealed after the merits ultimately are decided. The court of appeals did not examine whether a substantial right was at issue.

Although the state’s prediction of a “secret” trial is premature, we cannot ignore that court proceedings and documents enjoy a “presumption of openness” that generally may be overcome only by showing that a party’s constitutional rights would be at risk if the proceeding or document is made public. See Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d 197, 203-04 (Minn.1986) (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573, 575-81, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980)); see also Gannett Co., Inc., v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 386 n. 15, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979) (“For many centuries, both civil and criminal trials have traditionally been open to the public.”). In civil actions, “[ejach case involves a weighing of the policies in favor of openness against the interests of the litigant in sealing the record.” In re Rohr Malting Co., 632 N.W.2d 572, 576 (Minn.2001) (citing Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d at 202-03).

GSK is correct that documents produced as discovery are not presumed to be public and that district courts have broad discretion to issue protective orders, such as to protect trade secrets and similar commercial information. Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03(g); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984) (holding that “pretrial depositions and interrogatories are not public components of a civil trial”). And GSK has claimed that a constitutional right — a “petitioning privilege” under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution — is implicated. Compare Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d at 204 (holding that there is no First Amendment right for the public to access sealed settlement documents and transcripts). Still, district courts presiding over civil actions are directed to weigh “policies in favor of openness against the interests of the litigant in sealing the record.” In re Rahr Malting Co., 632 N.W.2d at 576.

We cannot ignore the attorney general’s statutory duty to enforce state antitrust laws. MinmStat. § 8.31, subd. 1 (2004) (requiring attorney general to investigate suspected antitrust violations under Minn.Stat. § 325D.49-.66 (2004)). To be fully effective, such enforcement usually must be done publicly, for educational purposes and to deter similar conduct by others. See, e.g., Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465, 473, 102 S.Ct. 2540, 73 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982) (referencing “broad remedial and deterrent objectives” of federal antitrust law). In addition, the state is a party to the Confidentiality Agreement and has a right to seek enforcement of its terms, including enforcement of the state’s right to object to GSK’s confidentiality designations and to seek a judicial determination of confidentiality. Similarly, the state has the right under the Protective Order to objéct to GSK’s designations and to seek court review of those designations. Finally, the state has the right under the MGDPA to “bring an action in the district court in the county where the data is maintained to obtain disclosure of data classified as confidential or protected nonpublic.” Minn.Stat. § 13.39, subd. 2a (2004). We conclude that substantial rights of the state are at issue in this appeal.

Finally, we examine whether the CID order resulted from a “special proceeding.” Rule 103.03(g) does not define the words “special proceeding.” We have preferred an interpretation that preserves the parties’ rights to appeal where appropriate. As we observed in Willeck v. Willeck:

A special proceeding is defined as usually meaning such a proceeding as may be commenced independently of a pending action by petition or motion, upon notice, in order to obtain special relief. Its existence is not dependent upon the existence of any other action and it therefore is not an integral part of the original action but is separate and apart. It adjudicates by final order a substantial right distinct from any judgment entered upon the merits of the original action.

286 Minn. 553, 554 n. 1, 176 N.W.2d 558, 559 n. 1 (1970).

On occasion, we have referenced the remedial nature of a special proceeding. See In re Janecek, 610 N.W.2d at 642 (stating that a special proceeding is a “generic term for a remedy that is not part of the underlying action and that is brought by motion or petition, upon notice, for action by the court independent of the merits of the underlying action”); Chapman v. Dorsey, 230 Minn. 279, 283, 41 N.W.2d 438, 440-41 (1950) (stating that a special proceeding is a “generic term for any civil remedy in a court of justice which is not of itself an ordinary action”). The court of appeals held that a CID order does not result from a special proceeding “because a CID is a pretrial discovery tool, not a remedy.”

We view a CID order differently. The attorney general is authorized to serve a CID “without commencement of a civil action,” and the district court is authorized to order compliance with CID procedures. Minn.Stat. § 8.31, subds. 2, 2a (2004). In a CID proceeding, the ultimate remedy to be provided by the court is the ordering of the production of discovery, which includes any determination of the public or confidential nature of discovery documents. The CID proceeding is not merged into any subsequent litigation, and discovery produced pursuant to a CID may or may not lead to a separate action. Thus, a CID order should not be characterized as a “pretrial discovery tool.”

A CID enforcement proceeding that finally determines the confidentiality of documents produced in response to a CID meets our prior definitions of a “special proceeding.” It “is not dependent upon the existence of any other action.” Wil-leck, 286 Minn, at 554 n. 1, 176 N.W.2d at 559 n. 1. It is commenced and enforced “independent of the merits of the underlying action.” In re Janecek, 610 N.W.2d at 642. In addition, GSK had notice of the proceeding and participated in it. For these reasons, we conclude that the CID order arose from a special proceeding.

We hold that when a district court issues an order in a CID proceeding that finally determines the confidentiality of documents produced, the order may be appealed of right under Minn. R. CivApp. P. 103.03(g). Because this holding resolves the appealability question, we need not consider whether the order may be appealed under other parts of rule 103.03, or whether the court of appeals abused its discretion by denying discretionary review.

II.

Next, we examine whether it is appropriate for us to consider the merits of the CID order as to whether the documents are confidential. The state’s petitions to this court requested remand to the court of appeals and did not request that we examine the merits. Subsequently, the state argued on brief that we should decide the issues on the merits in the “interest of justice” pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04.

Generally, we do not address issues that were not raised in a petition for review. Anderly v. City of Minneapolis, 552 N.W.2d 236, 239-40 (Minn.1996); accord Northwest Racquet Swim & Health Clubs, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, 535 N.W.2d 612, 613 n. 1 (Minn.1995); Hapka v. Paquin Farms, 458 N.W.2d 683, 685-86 (Minn.1990). But the state is correct that we may deviate from our usual procedure in the interest of justice. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04; see also Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343, 350 (Minn.2002) (concluding that “justice requires” consideration of child-support issue not previously raised because the court system has a key role in ensuring welfare of children).

It is unclear whether GSK might have argued its position on the merits more extensively had these issues been described in the state’s petition for further review and fully developed in the state’s brief. For this reason, we apply the general rule that we will consider only issues raised in a petition for review. Anderly, 552 N.W.2d at 239-40. We reverse the order of the court of appeals dismissing the appeal of right in case no. A04-2150 and remand to the court of appeals. See, e.g., Pulju v. Metro. Prop. & Cas., 535 N.W.2d 608, 609 (Minn.1995). In light of our ruling in case no. A04-2150, we dismiss case no. A04-2151 as moot.

Reversed and remanded to the court of appeals (No. A04-2150); dismissed as moot (No. A04-2151).

      . We have examined a CID order once before and did so under discretionary review. Kohn v. State, 336 N.W.2d 292, 295-97 (Minn. 1983). But we did not explain why discretionary- review was selected or even discuss review as of right. Id. at 294..

      . At least three federal statutes specify that orders enforcing federal CIDs are appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See 15 U.S.C. § 57b-l(h) (2000) (Federal Trade Commission’s CID); 15 U.S.C. § 1314(e) (2000) (federal antitrust CID); 31 U.S.C. § 3733(j)(5) (2000) (False Claims Act CID). We have not previously examined the appealability of attorney general administrative subpoenas issued pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 8.16 (2004) and express no opinion on the question here. But it is helpful for our present analysis to note that federal courts of appeals have held administrative subpoenas to be appealable as final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of NJ. v. Corrigan, 347 F.3d 57, 63 (3d Cir.2003); United States v. Legal Servs. for New York City, 249 F.3d 1077, 1080-81 (D.C.Cir.2001); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 228 F.3d 341, 345-46 (4th Cir.2000); E.E.O.C. v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., 985 F.2d 1036, 1038 (10th Cir.1993); Sheehan v. Doyle, 513 F.2d 895, 898 (1st Cir.1975). A decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is particularly instructive. In In re Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Co., the panel sua sponte asked the parties to argue whether an order involving an administrative subpoena was appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000), or under the collateral order doctrine. 214 F.3d 586, 589 (5th Cir. 2000). The panel concluded that appeal of right was most appropriate because "[a]n order enforcing an administrative subpoena is considered a final order.” Id.


author: /s/Paul H. Anderson Associate Justice

text:
    Humberto ALARCON, Relator, v. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, Self-Insured, adm’d by National Loss Control Services, Respondent, and Capitol Orthopedics, Ingenix/UCare Minnesota, and Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, Intervenors.
    No. A05-783.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    July 19, 2005.
   ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed March 23, 2005, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn.1982) (summary dispositions have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view, doing no more than establishing the law of the case).

BY THE COURT:

/s/Paul H. Anderson Associate Justice


author:
HANSON, Justice.
      ANDERSON, G. BARRY, J.

text:
    In the Matter of the Kenneth WREN Residential Relocation Claim. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, a public body corporate and politic under Minnesota law, Appellant, v. Kenneth Wren, Respondent.
    No. A04-207.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    July 28, 2005.

      James J. Thomson, Robert J.V. Vose, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
    Jon W. Morphew, Schnitker & Associates, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent Kenneth Wren.
    David Allan Davenport, Winthorp & Weinstine, P.A., Minneapolis MN, for In-tervener Lyndale Gateway LLC.
    Susan L. Naughton, League of Minnesota Cities, St. Paul, MN, for Amicus Curiae League of Minnesota Cities.
   OPINION

HANSON, Justice.

Appellant Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) appeals from an administrative order directing it to pay relocation benefits to respondent Kenneth Wren pursuant to the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act (MURA), Minn.Stat. §§ 117.50-117.56 (2002). The HRA contends that it should not be liable to pay the benefits because it contracted with a private developer to negotiate with Wren for the purchase of his home. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HRA had “undertaken acquisition” of Wren’s property within the meaning of MURA and held that Wren was entitled to relocation benefits. The court of appeals affirmed. In re Wren, 685 N.W.2d 721, 725 (Minn.App.2004). We affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

In 1993, the City of Richfield through its HRA began efforts to redevelop a “blighted and substandard” area on the 7600 blocks of Lyndale, Aldrich, and Garfield Avenues South. The redevelopment project eventually became known as “Lyndale Gateway West.” In January 1999, the HRA contracted with CSM Properties, Inc. to redevelop the area with a mixture of residential, retail, and office structures. By letter, the HRA informed area property owners about the contract and that there would be a process to address property-owner inquiries about “the purchase of their home.”

In November 1999, Wren purchased a residence at 7627 Aldrich Avenue South for $116,900, without actual knowledge that the property was within the redevelopment boundaries. Shortly after moving in, Wren received a postcard about a city council meeting where the redevelopment plans were to be discussed. He attended the meeting and later received “general information” about the time line for the project.

The HRA terminated its contract with CSM Properties in May 2001 and sought another developer. In August 2002, the HRA approved a contract with Cornerstone Group, which in turn created Lyn-dale Gateway, LLC, to acquire property for the project. The “Contract for Private Development” between the HRA and Lyn-dale Gateway specified that Lyndale Gateway was to “diligently pursue” property acquisitions through negotiation. If those negotiations failed, Lyndale Gateway could ask the HRA to “undertake condemnation” and HRA agreed that it would “in good faith, * * * undertake the steps necessary to acquire fee simple title to the portions of the Property to which the request relates.” All properties acquired by the HRA through condemnation would be conveyed to Lyndale Gateway. Lyndale Gateway was “responsible for all acquisition costs and the cost of relocation benefits and assistance provided to any party displaced as a result of the development.”

In 2002, the City of Richfield established a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district to finance the project. In July 2002, a real estate broker hired by Cornerstone Group contacted Wren to discuss the purchase of his property. Ultimately, the broker mailed a purchase agreement to Wren for the purchase of Wren’s home by Lyndale Gateway for $170,000. The purchase agreement gave notice that there was a “dual agency” arrangement and, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 82.197, subd. 2 (2004), disclosed that the broker owed fiduciary duties to both the buyer and seller. The purchase agreement’s addendum specified that the seller was waiving any claim to relocation benefits.

Wren negotiated a $10,000 increase to the purchase price. The broker testified at an administrative hearing that “Mr. Wren felt that he should be getting more money in order to move.” Ultimately, the parties signed the purchase agreement and addendum, with a sale price of $180,000. Wren closed on the sale of his property on June 5, 2008, and moved the same day. Shortly thereafter, he claimed relocation benefits from the HRA.

The HRA sought an administrative hearing pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 14.55 (2004) to challenge its liability to pay the benefits, and Lyndale Gateway’s petition to intervene was granted. The administrative law judge ruled that Wren was entitled to relocation benefits because (1) he was a “displaced person” within the meaning of the statute, (2) the city had “undertaken” acquisition of Wren’s property because “the record demonstrates a significant element of involvement and control by the HRA in this redevelopment effort,” and (3) Wren’s waiver of relocation benefits was ineffective because the HRA failed to meet its statutory duty to provide Wren with information on the benefits. See MinmStat. § 117.521, subd. 1 (2004). In his memorandum, the AL J concluded:

Where an HRA selects a private developer to engage in direct negotiations with property owners it should not be relieved of the requirements of the statute where it remains the moving force behind redevelopment, that is, where it “undertakes” the acquisition of property for redevelopment. To do so would frustrate the beneficial purpose, including the specific notice requirements, set out in MURA and the federal law.

The ALJ also denied the HRA’s petition for reconsideration.

On appeal by writ of certiorari, the court of appeals affirmed, holding that the HRA’s “significant role” in the project supported the ALJ’s conclusion that the HRA had “undertaken” acquisition of the property. In re Wren, 685 N.W.2d at 725. Because the HRA did not challenge the ALJ’s ruling that Wren’s waiver of relocation benefits was ineffective, the court of appeals did not address that issue. We granted the HRA’s petition for review of the issue of whether the acquisition of Wren’s property had been “undertaken” by the HRA, within the meaning of MURA.

I.

Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo without deference to an administrative decision. In re Denial of Eller Media Co.'s Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits, 664 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Minn.2003). When reviewing an administrative law judge’s findings of fact, we determine whether they are “[ujnsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (2004).

The MURA provision for relocation benefits reads in relevant part:

In all acquisitions undertaken by any acquiring authority and in all voluntary rehabilitation carried out by a person pursuant to acquisition or as a consequence thereof, * * * the acquiring authority, as a cost of acquisition, shall provide all relocation assistance, services, payments and benefits required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 * * *.

Minn.Stat. § 117.52, subd. 1 (2004). MURA specifies that “acquisition” includes “(a) acquisition by eminent domain; (b) acquisition by negotiation; (c) programs of area wide systematic housing code enforcement; and (d) demolition.” Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 4 (2004). MURA does not specify how an acquisition is “undertaken.” An “acquiring authority” includes “(a) the state and every public and private body and agency thereof which has the power of eminent domain; and (b) any acquiring authority carrying out an areawide systematic housing code enforcement program.” Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 5 (2004).

We have addressed the meaning of “acquisition” under MURA once before. In Gilliland v. Port Authority of St. Paul, we held that no “acquisition” had taken place when a hotel owner sought and received revenue bond financing from the Port Authority even though the owner conveyed fee simple title of the hotel to the Port Authority, which contemporaneously leased the property back to the owner. 270 N.W.2d 743, 746-47 (Minn.1978). Because the Port Authority had “no power to possess the hotel or to use it for its own purposes,” and because title to the property reverted to the redeveloper upon the expiration of the lease, we held that the Port Authority had not “acquired” the hotel and thus was not liable to pay relocation benefits to displaced tenants. Id. at 747. We characterized the sale-leaseback arrangement as “purely a financing arrangement.” Id.

The HRA contends that Gilliland controls our analysis, arguing that both that project and the Lyndale Gateway redevelopment were private efforts and that the only municipal involvement regarded funding. The HRA argues that Wren’s claim is even weaker than the claim in Gilliland because the HRA never took legal title to Wren’s home. But in Gilliland the project was initiated by the hotel owner, not the Port Authority, and the Port Authority did not select the developer or control by contract the developer’s actions, did not encourage the tenants to negotiate with the hotel owner, and was not contractually bound to acquire the property by eminent domain. In fact, neither party in Gilliland made an “acquisition.” The development project involved the rehabilitation of property by its present owner. The private developer already owned the hotel and did not need to acquire it. The only question in Gilliland was whether the transfer of bare legal title to the Port Authority, as part of a financing mechanism, constituted an “acquisition” by the Port Authority from the developer, within the contemplation of MURA. We held that it did not.

Here, by contrast, neither the HRA nor the developer owned the property that was to be redeveloped and thus the redevelopment project could not proceed unless the property was acquired from third-party owners, either by the developer, the HRA, or the two jointly. Because Gilliland did not involve any acquisition, and the Lyn-dale Gateway project was premised on the successful completion of several acquisitions, we conclude that Gilliland does not control our analysis. There is no question that private property was. acquired in this case; the question is by whom the acquisition was “undertaken.”

n.

The term “undertaken” is not defined by MURA. The AL J and court • of appeals cited dictionary definitions of the word, as to “take upon oneself,” “commit oneself,” or “begin.” In re Wren, 685 N.W.2d at 724; see also Minn.Stat. § 645.08(1) (2004) (stating that statutory nontechnical words and phrases are to be construed according to “common and approved usage”). The ALJ held that the HRA had undertaken acquisition of Wren’s property because the agency had exercised “a significant element of involvement and control,” and was the “moving force behind redevelopment.” Similarly, the court of appeals held that the HRA had a “significant role” in the project by initiating, fostering, and financing the redevelopment, by communicating with property owners and renters, and by agreeing to use its power of eminent domain if necessary. In re Wren, 685 N.W.2d at 725.

The HRA contends that “nothing in MURA or its legislative history” supports the conclusion that relocation benefits should depend on .whether an acquiring authority was “significantly involved” in a given acquisition. The HRA argues that MURA and Gilliland create, a bright-line standard whereby the words “acquisition undertaken by” apply only where the acquiring authority “(a) comes into possession or control of private property; (b) has the power of disposal over private property; or (c) treats property as its own.” But, again, this argument relies on an interpretation of the word “acquisition” that has no application here, and also fails to give meaning to the word “undertaken.”

We do not find the legislative history of MURA to be particularly informative on the meaning of the word “undertaken.” We do note that MURA, when enacted in 1973, made some changes in the law concerning relocation benefits, but those changes were minor and represent a slight broadening, not narrowing, of 'the benefits. We also note that the Minnesota legislature did not adopt the even broader changes made to the federal URA in 1987. The federal URA now provides for benefits “[wjhenever a program or project to be undertaken by a displacing agency will result in the displacement of any person.” Pub.L. No. 100-17, § 405(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 4622(a) (2003) (emphasis added). But the Minnesota legislature’s failure to adopt the federal language is equivocal at best. We have no way of determining whether that failure should be interpreted as a rejection of the broader federal rule, as the HRA argues; or as a determination that the federal changes were unnecessary as superfluous.

Both parties refer us to the decision of the federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Young v. Harris, 599 F.2d 870 (8th Cir.1979). Although that decision was made under the federal URA and is not binding on our interpretation of MURA, we find it useful in developing a standard for determining when a city has undertaken an acquisition even though the acquisition is more directly accomplished by the city’s developer. The court in Young considered whether activities of the private developer and the city were “sufficiently intertwined” to characterize them as a joint undertaking. 599 F.2d at 877. We conclude that this is the appropriate standard because it focuses on the substance and not just the form of the acquisitions and is consistent with the remedial purposes of MURA. This standard is perhaps similar to the “significant involvement” standard that the court of appeals used, but it more directly focuses on the quality, not just quantity, of the respective activities of the city and its developer, and how essential the activities of each are to the successful acquisition of the property to be redeveloped.

III.

Young is also instructive when we examine its application to the facts there presented. Some of those facts are similar to the facts here — the city identified an area for redevelopment; the city approved a development plan, selected a private developer and made a contract with the developer; the city agreed to provide municipal services to the development project; and the private developer undertook direct negotiations with the property owners. Id. at 873-75. But, unlike our facts, the city did not provide financial assistance and the city did not obligate itself to use its eminent domain power to acquire property that the developer could not acquire by negotiation. Also, the opinion in Young does not suggest that the city actively contacted property owners or used its influence to encourage property owners to deal with the developer.

The most important factor in the analysis of our facts is the HRA’s contractual obligation to use its eminent domain powers to acquire Wren’s property should private negotiations have failed. The HRA argues that, despite the contract, the HRA could have elected not to initiate condemnation proceedings should Lyndale Gateway’s negotiations with Wren have been unsuccessful. The HRA argues that it has never used its eminent domain power to condemn a single-family residence. But this argument is not supported by the HRA’s contract -with the developer, which provides no exception for single-family residences. Thus, if Wren’s property had not been acquired through negotiation and the developer had satisfied all other conditions, the HRA would have been required to either undertake condemnation proceedings or breach its contract obligation to “in good faith, * * * undertake the steps necessary to acquire fee simple title.”

Moreover, we cannot ignore the effect that the HRA’s promise to condemn necessarily had on the developer’s negotiations with Wren. The HRA’s frequent and direct communications with property owners made it clear that the developer was acting under contract with the HRA to acquire property within a development district that the HRA had identified and established. The HRA further encouraged property owners to deal with the developer. Property owners could fairly conclude that they could not refuse to sell, and that if they did not agree to a negotiated price, that price would be determined through a condemnation proceeding. Thus, the HRA’s power to condemn inevitably influenced Wren’s negotiations with the developer.

Further, the HRA actively used its position of trust with property owners to encourage their dealings with the developer. By initiating the project, controlling the developer, encouraging property owners to negotiate with the developer, providing financing to make the purchase possible and, most importantly, assuring the developer that the HRA’s power of condemnation was available to impose limits on the private negotiations, the HRA became an important “partner” in the acquisition, which in a real sense was jointly “undertaken” by the HRA and the developer. In other words, the fact that the developer had undertaken the acquisition does not exclude the HRA from the joint undertaking. Instead, the activities that were considered at the outset to be important to a successful redevelopment project were divided between the HRA and Lyndale Gateway, and each was bound to the other to perform its activity for the benefit of the project. Unlike in Young, the HRA did not delegate all important activities to the private developer, but retained responsibility for activities that were important to the ultimate success of the project. This division of roles presented a sufficient intertwining of activities to conclude that the acquisition of Wren’s property was jointly undertaken by the HRA and Lyndale Gateway.

Accordingly, the HRA is liable to pay relocation benefits to Wren.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, J.

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent.

I agree with the majority that, here, the issue presented is not whether private property was acquired, but by whom the acquisition was “undertaken.” Because I conclude that the HRA did not undertake this acquisition within the meaning of the controlling statute, I would reverse the court of appeals.

It is important to first note that the question presented is a matter of statutory interpretation and the parties do not argue, and we do not reach, any constitutional issues that might normally be associated with eminent domain actions. As a matter of policy, the federal government, and most states, provide compensation, known generally as “relocation benefits,” to those property owners required to move homes and businesses as a result of the exercise of constitutional eminent domain authority and those benefits are the focus of this appeal.

The Minnesota version of this statutory authority for relocation benefits is found at Minn.Stat. § 117.52, subd. 1 (2004), which provides eligibility for relocation benefits in all acquisitions “undertaken by any acquiring authority and in all voluntary rehabilitation carried out by a person pursuant to acquisition or as a consequence thereof.”

But what is most significant about the Minnesota statute is that it is extremely narrow in comparison to the federal statute governing the award of relocation benefits; indeed, as the majority opinion recognizes, the Minnesota statute is unique. By operation of federal law, federal relocation benefits are provided “[wjhenever a program or project to be undertaken by a displacing agency will result in the displacement of any person.” Pub.L. No. 100-17, § 405(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 4622(a) (2003) (emphasis added). The broad and inclusive references to “program” and “project” in the federal statute, and many state statutes, are absent from the Minnesota version. In my view, the specific statutory language chosen by the Minnesota legislature requiring an “acquiring authority” to “undertake” an acquisition is sufficient to conclude that no relocation benefits are awardable in the present dispute.

While not directly controlling, as the majority properly recognizes, our prior decision in Gilliland v. Port Authority of St. Paul, 270 N.W.2d 743 (Minn.1978), provides additional support for the conclusion that relocation benefits are not properly awardable here. The Gilliland court, in examining the definition of acquisition in connection with eminent domain principles, viewed “acquisition” as meaning to actually “obtain.” Id. at 746. Gilliland is of only marginal utility here, given the factual differences between Gilliland and the present dispute, but at a minimum, Gilliland suggests that Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 4(b), should be read narrowly.

The narrow statutory language, the limited guidance provided by Gilliland and the failure of the legislature to change the definition at issue here in the intervening decades all support the conclusion that the HRA never undertook the acquisition of the Wren property and thus the HRA has no liability for relocation benefits here.. Whether viewed in the light of the “obtain” language used by the Gilliland court, or a possession or control of the property test, or some other formulation, the HRA never had the requisite legal interest in the property to acquire Wren’s property in the sense required by statute. The majority opinion decides differently, however, at least in part, and awards relocation benefits because it concludes the HRA was contractually obligated to use eminent domain to acquire property that the developer could not acquire by negotiation, including the property owned by Wren.

The majority’s argument rests essentially on one fine of the agreement between the HRA and the developer found at section 3.2(b) of the contract where the HRA agrees to “undertake the steps necessary to acquire fee simple title to the portions of the property to which the request relates.” But that phrase must be viewed in conjunction with other provisions in the contract which tend to weaken the argument that the HRA had a contractual obligation to acquire Wren’s property if no deal could be reached between Wren and the developer.

The “request” referred to in section 3.2(b) that the developer is authorized to make is described in section 3.2(a)(7) of the contract. Significantly, the section 3.2(a)(7) provision, which authorizes the developer to request that the city use its eminent domain authority, contains numerous preconditions before it becomes legally binding. The administrative law judge made no finding that all of those preconditions had been met. Additionally, the HRA argues, and the administrative law judge found, that the city had never acquired a residential property in these circumstances, and the HRA further argues that it would not have done so had the developer made such a request. Indeed, the record demonstrates that the only request made by the developer to the city for condemnation concerned commercial properties. There is no evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, that the developer understood that it had the right to request that the city condemn, and take title to, residential property.

Further, whatever contractual duties the HRA might have with respect to condemnation, section 3.1 expressly limits those duties to .an obligation to “proceed in good faith and to utilize its best efforts.” The contract and the record before us are decidedly unhelpful in unraveling what “best efforts” might mean.

Wren argues persuasively that the HRA would be unlikely to walk away from this large redevelopment project because of an unwillingness to condemn residential property. But Wren is not a party to the contract, and his argument is essentially speculation about a decision elected officials might or might not make. And what are we to make of the ALJ’s memorandum in connection with a petition for reconsideration, in which the ALJ, in rejecting that petition, noted that the findings did not “reject some possibility that the HRA would refuse to condemn Mr. Wren’s home”? There is some factual uncertainty which this court has now resolved without the benefit of trial, evidence, or even a summary judgment proceeding involving the two parties to the contract.

My point is not to debate the relative merits of these arguments but to simply illustrate that countervailing arguments do exist and might have been presented if the HRA and developer found themselves at cross purposes over whether the HRA was obligated to exercise its eminent domain authority with respect to residential property.

Whether intentionally or inadvertently obfuseatory, it can hardly be said that, as a matter of law, the HRA was “contractually obligated” to commence eminent domain proceedings here in connection with the Wren residential property. And that is precisely the conclusion the majority opinion reaches. And absent the contractual requirement to condemn the Wren property, there is no link between the HRA and the developer establishing that the HRA “undertook” an acquisition of the Wren property.

Finally, I turn to the logical consequences of the majority opinion. The court of appeals used a standard of “significant involvement” to hook the HRA with the developer such that municipal liability for relocation benefits was created while the majority opinion, using language found in Young v. Harris, 599 F.2d 870 (8th Cir.1979), focused instead on a standard centered around whether the activities of the private developer and the city were “sufficiently intertwined” to characterize those activities as a joint undertaking. Regardless of which standard is used, either standard ignores the reality of redevelopment projects.

The procedures used by the HRA in this development project were not unusual. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the record that any residential property owner received any correspondence or communication from the city threatening or even suggesting the possible use of eminent domain. Indeed, letters from the city encouraged cooperation with the developer but also warn of problems with financing the project. The logical reaction of municipalities and other acquiring agencies to the majority opinion is to quit informing residents of activity occurring in connection with redevelopment projects.

The majority, in its effort to support the argument that there was a joint project here, recites a litany of facts including that the city identified the area for redevelopment, approved the development plan, selected a private developer, entered into a contract with the developer and agreed to provide municipal services to the project.

It is hard to conceive, however, of any municipal redevelopment project which would not share these features. The logical conclusion of the majority opinion is that any redevelopment project with municipal sponsorship must now bear responsibility for all relocation benefits regardless of who actually acquired the property. This may be good public policy but it is not public policy required by statute.

Wren argues persuasively that relocation benefits should be payable to residential property owners under these circumstances and also argues that to hold otherwise is to encourage municipalities to avoid liability for relocation benefits. But, regardless of the merits of Wren’s argument, the scope of relocation benefits is a contested public policy issue for the legislature to address, not this court.

For all of these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

      . The record does not specify the precise nature of this TIF funding, but indicates that the city reimbursed the redeveloper for some of its costs.

      . The pertinent portion of the paragraph read:
      Seller acknowledges that this is a voluntary and arm’s length transaction between Buyer and Seller, and that the purchase price has been established through negotiation and represents the total amount that will be due and payable to Seller by reason of this transaction. Seller specifically acknowledges and agrees that neither Buyer nor the City of Richfield shall have any obligation to pay or provide to Seller, any relocation assistance, services, payments or benefits. Additionally, Seller expressly waives any claim to relocation assistance, services, benefits or payments.

      . Section 14.55 authorizes a political subdivision to contract with the state's chief administrative law judge to hear such matters.

      . Minnesota Statutes § 117.52, subd. 1, applies when, as here, federal relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4601-4655 (2003) (URA), is not available because there is no federal financial 'participation. MURA incorporates URA standards as to the types of benefits that an acquiring authority must provide. Benefits generally include actual moving expenses, compensation for property losses, and expenses related to finding replacement business property. See 42 U.S.C. § 4622(a) (2003). The 2002 version of MURA applies to this case.

      . See, e.g., Young v. Harris, 599 F.2d 870, 876 n. 9 (8th Cir.1979) (concluding that displacements caused by rehabilitation of property by its present owner are not covered by the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 because they did not result from an acquisition).

      . The predecessor statute referred to acquisitions "instituted'' instead of acquisitions "undertaken” and limited liability for relocation benefits to acquisitions "by eminent domain or by negotiation.” Minn.Stat. § 117.095 (1971). MURA expanded relocation benefits to acquisition by "demolition” and “programs of areawide systematic housing code enforcement.” Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 4(c)-(d). This broadening of MURA weakens the HRA’s argument that liability for relocation benefits arises only when the authority "has the power of disposal over private property” or "treats property as its own,” since the authority would attain no such rights through housing-code enforcement.

      . Several states have statutes identical or similar to the federal URA. Cal. Gov.Code § 7262(a) (2004); Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 24- . 56-103(1) (2004); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 305.603 (2004); Neb.Rev.Stat. .§ 76-1228 (2004); N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 124-A:3(I) (2004); N.D.Cent.Code 54-01.1-03 (2004); Tenn.Code Ann. 13-11-105(a) (2004); Wash. Rev.Code.Ann. 8.26.035(1) (2004). Minnesota’s statute appears to be unique.

      . The HRA also argues that the legislature's reaction to the court of appeals' decision in James Brothers signals a general intent for MURA to mirror URA. See In re Relocation Benefits of James Bros. Furniture, Inc., 642 N.W.2d 91, 99 (Minn.App.2002). In 2003, the legislature amended the state definition of "displaced person" to "correspond to federal law,” in apparent response to a court of appeals decision that concluded that the term "should be construed to be broader than the federal act's definition." Act of May 23, 2003, ch. 117, § 1, 2003 Minn. Laws 688, 688-89 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 3 (2004)); James Bros., 642 N.W.2d at 99. Had the legislature intended for MURA to more broadly mirror URA, presumably the legislature would have taken steps to accomplish this.

      . Under the Missouri Urban Redevelopment Corporation Law, the city was authorized to grant the powers of eminent domain to the developer. Young, 599 F.2d at 873-74.

      . That the HRA was bound only to act in “good faith” is of little consequence because "[ujnder Minnesota law, every contract includes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requiring that one party not 'unjustifiably hinder’ the other party's performance of the contract.” In re Hennepin County 1986 Recycling Bond Litigation, 540 N.W.2d 494, 502 (Minn.1995).

      . The HRA argues that Wren, as part of an “arm’s length” transaction, negotiated a price $10,000 higher than the initial offer to compensate him for his moving expenses. We are unwilling to characterize the transaction as one at "arm’s length” because of the "dual agency” arrangement. There is no indication that the broker satisfied his fiduciary duty of informing Wren about the type and amounts of relocation benefits that might be available. Further, the HRA has not challenged the ALJ’s determination that Wren’s waiver of relocation benefits was ineffective. Under Minn.Stat. § 117.521, subd. 1 (2004), a party may voluntarily waive relocation assistance by signing a waiver "specifically describing” the types and amounts of assistance available and "stating that the agreement is voluntary and not made under any threat of acquisition by eminent domain.”

      . Gilliland also supports the proposition that we read MURA in light of the corresponding federal statute to discern legislative intent. There, we noted that ''[t]he Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4601, et seq., MURAs Federal counterpart, provides assistance to those displaced by Federally financed state projects.” 270 N.W.2d at 747. Thus, “[flrom the legislatures failure to include such a provision in the [MURA] statute,” we concluded "that relocation assistance is not available where the governmental action causing displacement is solely the financing of a private rehabilitation project.” Id.

      . Indeed, we have previously criticized municipalities for failing to do what the HRA has done here — to keep residents abreast of redevelopment activities. In Johnson v. City of Minneapolis, we criticized Minneapolis in connection with a downtown development project because property owners “were not informed that the City was not obligated to proceed with the development under the agreement with [the developer], were not apprised of the status of the development project, and were not informed when the * * * project was effectively abandoned.” 667 N.W.2d 109, 116 (Minn.2003). Thus, we agreed with the district court's conclusion that the city "misled the appellants by their words, actions, and inactions * * * leading [appellants] to believe that the acquisition was going forward.” Id. (citation omitted).


author: PER CURIAM. ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice BLATZ, Chief Justice

text:
    In re PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Eric Leighton CRANDALL, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 189492.
    No. A04-2431.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    July 28, 2005.

      Eric Leighton Crandall, New Richmond, WI, pro se.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Eric Leighton Crandall committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline by neglecting matters of three clients, failing to communicate with clients, and failing to cooperate fully with the Director. Crandall and the Director stipulated to dispense with panel proceedings and to immediately file the petition with this court. When Crandall failed to file an answer to the petition, we ordered the petition admitted pursuant to Rule 13(b), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). The only issue before us is the level of discipline to be imposed. The Director recommends indefinite suspension from the practice of law, with no right to apply for reinstatement for at least 6 months. Crandall argues that public reprimand and probation are appropriate. We agree with the Director that Crandall has committed serious misconduct warranting an indefinite suspension, but hold that Crandall may apply for reinstatement after 3 months.

Crandall practices law in New Richmond, Wisconsin, and previously practiced in Stillwater, Minnesota. He was privately admonished once before — in 2001 for failing to communicate with a client. The present petition involves three civil actions that Crandall filed on behalf of three clients in United States District Court, District of Minnesota.

In the first action, Crandall failed to respond to motions to dismiss and to recover attorney fees and costs, and then failed to appear at a motion hearing. The court granted the motion to dismiss and awarded $10,193.23 in costs and attorney fees, which Crandall paid in November 2008.

In the second action, Crandall failed to respond to requests for admission, and the requests were deemed admitted. When Crandall failed to appear at an October 24, 2003, summary judgment hearing, the federal district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, sanctioned Crandall $20,000, and suspended him from federal practice. Crandall paid the sanction and was reinstated to federal practice.

In the third action, commenced in January 2003, Crandall failed to adequately respond to client questions regarding the representation. Crandall then failed to respond to discovery requests and a request to stipulate to an amended answer. Cran-dall did not inform the client about those requests, about a counterclaim, or about a motion to compel discovery and to recover fees and sanctions. Crandall failed to appear at a July 21, 2003, hearing and did not inform the client about a July 22 order warning that failure to produce discovery responses would result in attorney fees being awarded. When Crandall did not appear at a July 29 hearing, the defendant’s motions to amend and add a counterclaim were granted. The action was settled in November 2003, but the client refused to sign a settlement agreement or a stipulation of dismissal until a provision regarding interest payments was included. Crandall sent the client $700 from his account to cover the disputed interest. In December 2003, Crandall withdrew as counsel and substituted other counsel without the client’s permission.

Crandall’s conduct as described above constituted neglect of client matters, failure to communicate with clients, failure to expedite litigation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 3.4(c) and 8.4(d), RLPR.

On April 1, 2004, the client in the third action filed a complaint with the Director, but Crandall failed to respond within 14 days as requested and the Director sent two letters seeking a written response and requesting a June 23 meeting. Cran-dall sent a facsimile transmission late on June 22 saying that he had not had time to respond but would do so by June 28, and asking to meet with the Director on June 30. Crandall provided no written response and did not meet with the Director on June 30, explaining that a family member had died, that he had not had time to respond, and that he would respond by July 6. Crandall did not respond by July 6, but did meet with the Director on July 8 as agreed, provided some information about the misconduct, and was advised that he still had to file a written response. No written response was received, and on September 1 the Director issued charges of unprofessional conduct. Crandall provided a written response on September 2, appeared for a prehearing meeting, and represented himself before this court on May 10, 2005. Crandall’s failure to timely, respond constituted non-cooperation with the disciplinary investigation, in violation of Rules 8.1(a)(3) and 25, RLPR! Failure to timely and completely cooperate is a significant factor in an attorney discipline investigation because it impedes the investigation, adds to the burden on the Director’s staff, prevents the Director from responding to the complaining party, and frequently precludes the development of a record that explains why the misconduct occurred and how the attorney intends to prevent it in the future.

Disciplinary sanctions for professional misconduct are imposed to protect the public and the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct. In re Moore, 692 N.W.2d 446, 450 (Minn.2005). In imposing sanctions on a case-by-case basis, we examine the nature of the misconduct, the cumulative weight of the violation of the rules of professional conduct, the harm to the public, and the harm to the legal profession. Id.

Recently, in Moore we ordered supervised probation and public reprimand for an attorney who did not attend a hearing, advised the client not to attend, failed to inform the client of consequences ($540 in attorney fees), and had been subject to private discipline three times previously. 692 N.W.2d at 448, 450. Crandall has been disciplined only once before, by private reprimand, but concedes that his actions affected three clients, resulted in the claims of two clients being dismissed and gave rise to more than $30,000 in federal court sanctions. Crandall’s only explanation for his misconduct is that he took on more cases than he could handle.

Given the cumulative nature of respondent’s client neglect and lack of communication, we agree with the Director that discipline more serious than what was imposed in Moore is warranted, and that indefinite suspension is appropriate. See In re Madsen, 426 N.W.2d 434, 435-36 (Minn.1988) (ordering indefinite suspension for failing to file summons or complaint and to communicate with client and failing to cooperate in investigation); In re Pokomy, 453 N.W.2d 345 (Minn.1990) (ordering indefinite suspension for failing to attend three court appearances and issuing insufficient check to pay fee for nonappearance). We also agree with the Director that the reinstatement procedure in Rule 18, RLPR, is necessary where, as here, the attorney has not adequately explained why the misconduct occurred and has not addressed how clients were harmed or what steps he has taken to prevent future misconduct.

The Director initially recommended that Crandall not be eligible to apply for reinstatement until 6 months after suspension. At oral argument, the Director clarified that the most critical part of the recommendation was the requirement for a reinstatement petition and that a lesser period might be warranted.

Based on the record before us, we conclude that Crandall has engaged in serious misconduct warranting discipline. Therefore, we order that effective 20 days from the date of this opinion Eric Leighton Crandall be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, pay $900 in costs and disbursements pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR, and comply fully with Rule 26, RLPR. Crandall may seek reinstatement after 3 months from the date of this opinion, but must fully comply with Rule 18(a)-(e), RLPR.

So ordered.

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice

(dissenting).

DISSENT

I respectfully dissent. Given the nature and degree of Crandall’s misconduct, I conclude that the disciplinary sanction we are imposing lacks proportionality when compared with the sanctions we have imposed in other cases. See, e.g., In re Edinger, 700 N.W.2d 462 (Minn. July 28, 2005). Edinger and Crandall were heard the same day and are being released simultaneously. In Edinger, we imposed a sanction identical to the one we are imposing here. But the nature and degree of misconduct in these two cases is .different; therefore, the sanctions should be different.

In my dissent in In re Edinger, I asserted that Edinger’s suspension should be increased from three months to four months. In turn, I would decrease the length of time after which Crandall may-seek reinstatement from three months to two months. While the difference in the length of the suspension in these two cases may appear slight and even insignificant to. some, it is not. One or two months in the practice of law for someone who depends on his law practice for his livelihood is very significant, a fact of which we should never lose sight. Moreover, the difference in the length of the two suspensions recognizes that there should be a difference in the two sanctions if we hope to maintain proportionality in the sanctions we impose.

The happenstance that the professional misconduct cases of Edinger and Crandall were heard and conferenced on the same day gives us a good opportunity to compare the two lawyers’ misconduct and impose sanctions that are in proportion to that misconduct. The Director recommended that we impose a minimum six-month suspension in each case; instead, we have imposed three-month suspensions. Neither the Director’s recommendations nor the sanctions properly account for the difference in the nature and degree of misconduct.

I conclude that Edinger’s misconduct is the more serious of the two. In Edinger’s case, in order to conceal the misuse of his. trust account, he engaged in a very pronounced pattern of repeated misrepresentations when he falsified documents requested by the Director. Edinger also repeatedly failed to cooperate with the Director. The Director first received notice of possible problems with Edinger’s trust account in January 2002. It was not until early 2004 that Edinger, after repeated requests, provided most, but not all, of the documentation requested by the Director. Further, it was only later in 2004 that Edinger acknowledged that he had falsified documents he had provided to the Director.

Crandall’s disciplinary action is the result of his neglect of client matters, failure to communicate with clients, failure to expedite litigation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Crandall’s misconduct, like Edinger’s misuse of his trust account, is serious. Crandall’s misconduct involved neglect of three client matters in federal court, most of which appears to have occurred during part of 2003, As the result of his neglect, Cran-dall paid federal court fees and sanctions in excess of $30,000. Crandall’s lack of cooperation with the Director, extended from Aprii 1, 2004, until the fall of 2004, during which time he did communicate with the Director, including a meeting with the.Director on July 8. However, unlike Edinger, Crandall does have a history of prior discipline — a 2001 admonition for failure to communicate with a client.

A failure to cooperate with an investigation by the Director is serious misconduct. It increases the time, staffing, and cost of enforcing the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility. The majority correctly points out that lack of cooperation “impedes the .investigation, adds to the burden on the Director’s staff, prevents the Director from responding to the complaining party, and frequently precludes the development of a record that explains why the misconduct occurred and how the attorney intends to prevent it in the future.” ‘

Edinger’s extended period of noncooperation and his intentional falsification of information significantly distinguish his misconduct from Crandall’s. ■ Although it is difficult to understand Edinger’s falsification of information and lack of cooperation, it must be emphasized that he acted with intent to deceive and then thwarted the Director’s efforts to deal with his misconduct. Such behavior strikes at the heart of the trust and integrity we expect of persons admitted to the practice of law. Thus, Edinger’s misconduct merits a more severe sanction than Crandall’s.

I believe it is important to add a comment about the federal court sanctions imposed upon Crandall. The federal court temporarily suspended Crandall from practicing before that court and imposed fees and sanctions of more than $30,000, which Crandall has paid. Crandall wants us to treat the federal sanctions and his payment of all monies due as mitigating factors. We should not do so because our disciplinary sanctions and those of the federal court have different ends. Thus, payment of federal sanctions does not and should not mitigate what we do. That said, I add that, on the other hand, a purposeful failure to comply with or ignore the federal court’s sanctions may be viewed as an aggravating factor.

I would suspend Crandall from the practice of law with the condition that he may seek reinstatement after two months from the date of this order.

BLATZ, Chief Justice

(dissenting).

I join in the dissent of Justice Paul H. Anderson.

      . The Director alleges that Crandall violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (keep client informed), 3.2 (expedite litigation), 3.4(c) (obey tribunal rules), 8.1(a)(3) (cooperate with disciplinary matter), and 8.4(d) ("It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice”); as well as Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers subject to investigation to appear for conferences and to furnish documents and an explanation about the misconduct.