- 6 -
argues that he would be entitled to the independent expert report
under FOIA and that pursuing his motion to compel here causes a
delay in the FOIA matter. The FOIA matter, however, is separate
from this proceeding and outside this Court's jurisdiction and
therefore has no effect on discovery issues before this Court.
Davis v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 1014, 1024 (1976); Maple v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-567.
Respondent, in addition to other grounds, contends that
petitioner's motion to compel production of documents is untimely
under Rule 70(a)(2).1 Rule 70(a)(2) requires discovery to be
completed, unless otherwise authorized by the Court, no later
than 45 days prior to the date set for call of the case from a
trial calendar. Respondent argues that the case was calendared
for trial on June 2, 1997, and that discovery had to be completed
45 days prior to that date, April 18, 1997. Accordingly,
respondent maintains that petitioner's request for documents on
April 21, 1997, was not timely. By order of this Court, this
case was stricken from the June 2, 1997, calendar. Petitioner
subsequently filed the motion to compel production of documents
at issue here. Accordingly and due to the continuance of the
trial in this case, it is now irrelevant that petitioner's
1 All Rule references are to the Tax Court’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the period under
consideration, unless otherwise indicated.
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