- 91 -
did not produce. Consequently, the Court ordered an evidentiary
hearing concerning those documents that took place on October 27,
1993, during the trial of these cases.62
Both prior to and at the conclusion of that hearing, the
Court informed petitioner that he had the burden of proving that
he did not have possession, custody, or control of the documents
in question. At the evidentiary hearing, petitioner produced
certain documents sought by respondent, and respondent was satis-
fied with respect to all her requests except for certain records
of (1) Double Wealth with respect to BB Loan No. 3, (2) Horbury
with respect to, inter alia, the loan at issue involving Horbury,
and (3) Forward with respect to, inter alia, the ownership of its
stock during the years 1983 through 1986 and its alleged pledges
of cash deposits to secure loans to Radcliffe and BOT during the
years 1982 through 1986. At the evidentiary hearing on respon-
dent's motion to compel, petitioner testified that he did not
have possession, custody, or control of the documents in question
that had not been produced and about his alleged efforts to
locate them.
On October 27, 1993, at the conclusion of the hearing on
respondent's motion to compel, the Court orally ruled that peti-
62 The evidentiary hearing was held on Oct. 27, 1993, during the
trial of these cases because petitioner, without good cause, did
not make himself available to the Court at the call of these
cases from the calendar and did not present himself in Court
until Oct. 27, 1993, two days after the trial of these cases had
commenced. Despite petitioner's unjustified absence, the Court
delayed holding that hearing in an effort to accommodate him and
interrupted the trial in order to hold it.
Page: Previous 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011