- 4 -
Although petitioners served responses to the interrogatories
and requests for production, the response to most of the
interrogatories and requests consisted of the words “Fifth
Amendment” in lieu of the requested information. Thereafter, in
replying to respondent’s status report questioning the good faith
of petitioners’ responses, petitioners filed Motions for In
Camera Review of Discovery Responses and Entry of Order Abating
Case. Petitioners asserted that an ongoing criminal
investigation of abusive trusts justified petitioners’ assertion
of the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Petitioners’ motions for in camera review and for
“abatement” and respondent’s subsequent motions to impose
sanctions were heard in Houston on October 25, 1999.
Petitioners’ motions were denied. Petitioners were ordered to
turn over to respondent certain documents, and respondent’s
motions for sanctions were denied. The cases were continued, and
the parties were ordered to file status reports describing the
status of discovery and proposing mutually acceptable dates for
trial in Washington, D.C. After the reports were filed, the
cases were calendared for trial in Washington, D.C., on May 3,
2000.
As anticipated by the Court’s order setting the cases for
trial in Washington, D.C., further discovery requests were served
by respondent on petitioners. The Court was involved in attempts
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011