Mednansky: The Tax Cards Ordered Were Produced, and Punitive Contempt Required a Separate Proceeding

A taxpayer’s broad request for records and the court’s narrower production order were different documents. That distinction helped defeat a contempt motion in Mednansky v. Department of Revenue, No. TC 5465 (Or. Tax Ct. Jan. 23, 2026). The Oregon Tax Court also identified a separate procedural defect: A punitive-contempt request required the process described in the governing Oregon rules and statute. Mednansky, opinion at 1.

The motion relied on a broader request than the order

The taxpayer had informally requested material on December 20. The court’s December 30 order required production of ten property tax cards. The county produced those cards. The January 19 contempt motion nevertheless argued that additional material remained missing.

The court compared what it actually ordered with what was produced. A party’s earlier request did not enlarge the later command. Because the ordered tax cards had been supplied, the record did not establish willful disobedience of that production obligation. Mednansky, order, page 2–3.

Punitive contempt required the prescribed procedure

The court explained that punitive-contempt proceedings under TCR 78 B and ORS 33 require a new action and service complying with TCR 7. The taxpayer’s motion in the existing case did not satisfy that process. This procedural ground was independent of the court’s comparison of the order with the production. Mednansky, order, page 1–2.

The distinction matters for understanding the decision. An allegation of incomplete discovery, proof that an existing order was violated and the procedure for seeking punitive contempt each present a separate question. The ruling applied the Oregon provisions to the motion before it.

The court denied the motion on the record before it

The court denied the contempt request. Its reasoning depended both on the required proceeding and on compliance with the actual December 30 command. Mednansky, order, page 4. The order should be read as a resolution of that request, rather than a substitute for identifying the proper discovery remedy in a different case.

A useful file for review therefore includes the complete request, the actual order, production correspondence and the records received. Identify each allegedly missing item and the precise source of the claimed obligation. If the item appears only in the original request, say so; if an order commands it, identify the order’s language and any qualification.

Keep the document comparison separate from the remedy

A records chart can distinguish material produced, material ordered but missing, and material sought but not ordered. That chart does not itself establish contempt or a right to sanctions. It allows counsel to assess the actual gap, governing procedure and available next step.

The companion Insight examines a separate January 20 order denying reconsideration of a remote-appearance request, while allowing a supplemental motion on travel hardship or testimony waiver. That order required its own factual showing; it was not part of the January 23 ruling on production of the tax cards.

TCR 46 B(2)(d) permits treating failure to obey a discovery order as contempt. The court explained that punitive contempt nevertheless requires the proceeding and service prescribed by TCR 78 B and ORS 33. Having contempt authority did not eliminate those procedural requirements. Mednansky, order, page 2.