- 7 -
of the trial date and indicating respondent would seek a default
judgment or move to dismiss for failure properly to prosecute if
Attorney Riley continued to fail to cooperate.
On May 12, 1994, respondent mailed her trial memorandum to
the Court and to Attorney Riley. Attorney Riley did not prepare
a trial memorandum. On June 2, 1994, Attorney Riley contacted
respondent's counsel indicating he would be out of town until
late on June 3, 1994. Respondent's counsel offered to meet
during the weekend of June 4 and 5, 1994, but Attorney Riley
failed to contact him.
At the calendar call of the trial session on June 6, 1994,
there were no stipulations of fact by the parties, no exchanges
of documents, and no trial memorandum from petitioners. The
Court's Standing Pre-Trial Order requires the parties to meet and
to stipulate under Rule 91 "to the maximum extent possible". The
Standing Pre-Trial Order also requires the parties to exchange
trial memoranda (including their witness lists and copies of all
documents to be offered at trial that have not been stipulated
to) 15 days before the calendar call of the trial session.
Respondent's counsel had complied to the extent that he could do
so unilaterally. Attorney Riley appeared at the calendar call
but had not complied with the Court's Standing Pre-Trial Order.
Instead, Attorney Riley filed a motion for continuance which the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011