- 6 -
concerning what stipulations might be reached with regard to the
documents, and to attempt to settle as many issues as possible.
Although petitioners' attorney and petitioners' accountant
met with respondent's representatives a number of times after the
trial to discuss the documents in the boxes, the parties reached
no agreement as to the significance of the documents and no
settlement or further stipulation with regard to any of the
evidence or issues in this case. On August 31, 1994, the record
in this case was closed, and we did not admit into evidence the
contents of the 22 boxes nor any summaries that petitioners had
purportedly made therefrom.
Petitioners now move to reopen the record and to admit into
evidence the contents of the 22 boxes and/or the purported
summaries of the contents of the boxes that their accountant
allegedly prepared after trial. Petitioners assert that by
holding the record open after trial and by suggesting that the
parties meet to review the documents, to attempt to settle
issues, and to attempt to stipulate to further evidence, the
Court misled petitioners. Petitioners allege that they incurred
substantial additional costs and that the Court thereby has
become obligated to admit into evidence in this case the
documents in the 22 boxes and the purported summaries thereof
that petitioners belatedly produced. We disagree.
Petitioners have done little in this case to assist
respondent and the Court to evaluate the issues before us in a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011