- 4 -
Court urged petitioner to present to respondent prior to the
dates on which briefs were due any documents that he claimed
supported his positions on the issues in this case, but that he
did not present as evidence at trial. The Court also urged
respondent to give serious consideration to any such documenta-
tion that petitioner provided to her after trial, with a view to
settling some or all of the issues herein.
On January 11, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for an
extension of time within which to file his opening brief in this
case (petitioner's motion for an extension). Due to its inabil-
ity to reach petitioner, the Court was not able to hold a tele-
phonic conference with the parties regarding petitioner's motion
for an extension until January 17, 1996. During that telephonic
conference, petitioner acknowledged that he had thus far pre-
sented no documentation whatsoever to respondent in an attempt to
settle some or all of the issues in this case. During that same
telephonic conference, petitioner made general allegations
relating to his inability to present documentation to respondent.
Petitioner further indicated that he might obtain an affidavit
from a doctor that he would send to the Court. No such affidavit
was ever received by the Court. On January 18, 1996, the Court
denied petitioner's motion for an extension. However, since the
date on which simultaneous opening briefs were due, viz., January
12, 1996, had passed by the time the Court was able to have a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011