- 6 -
I have had conversations with the assistant
attorney general of the State of Maryland concerning
what their testimony and official records would be.
They indicate to me merely that there is disputed facts
to the extent that their records do not coincide with
allegations of fact that Mr. Wittstadt has made.
And, therefore, I think, ultimately if Mr.
Wittstadt would waive his disclosure privilege with the
State of Maryland, the State would be able to provide
an affidavit that would show that material facts are in
dispute in this case.
The Court agreed to continue petitioners' motion for summary
judgment for further hearing. In agreeing to do so, the Court
stated, in part, as follows:
What the Court would expect is that, to the extent
possible, the parties would stipulate or agree to facts
not reasonably in dispute, and indicate so you can
highlight to the Court what facts are left in dispute,
and whether or not to support -- Respondent seems to be
saying that he believes that summary judgment is not
appropriate here because there may be a dispute on
facts. But it would be certainly helpful to have a
record in which the Court can decide that by
stipulation.
On April 20, 1994, a further hearing was conducted in
Washington, D.C., on petitioners' motion for summary judgment.5
However, contrary to the Court's directive expressed at the prior
hearing, no executed stipulations were filed by the parties. In
this regard, respondent's counsel acknowledged that information
had been obtained from the Maryland State Retirement Agency;
respondent's counsel stated that he had prepared stipulations of
5 We note that at no time did respondent ever file any
cross-motion for summary judgment. As will be discussed infra in
the text above, respondent thought that there were factual issues
in dispute.
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