- 12 -
33. By Order dated March 12, 1998, the
Court directed petitioners to file a Status
Report with the Court by March 27, 1998, stating
each issue in the case and the steps they had
taken to exchange information.
34. On March 30, 1998, petitioner filed
a Status Report that was generally non-responsive
to the Court's Order. Petitioner's report
inferred [sic] he wanted a continuance.
35. By Order dated March 12, 1998 [sic],
the Court directed petitioners to file a list
of every issue in dispute by April 28, 1998,
warning petitioner that the Court might refuse
to consider any issues not raised therein.
The Court denied the request for a continuance.
The Court directed the parties to file a com-
prehensive stipulation of facts by April 28,
1998, warning that sanctions may result to
an uncooperative party. Both parties were
directed to identify proposed witnesses and
a summary of their anticipated testimony by
April 28, 1998.
36. Respondent sent petitioners a letter on
April 7, 1998, asking that they call to schedule
a meeting on or before April 20, 1998, so that
there would be sufficient time to prepare the
stipulation.
37. On April 20, 1998, Mr. Hartman called
respondent and stated that he was unavailable
until April 27, 1998. Respondent advised
petitioner that this was not enough time to
ensure that a stipulation of facts could be
filed in accordance with the Court's Order.
38. On April 27, 1998, Mr. Hartman advised
respondent that he could not meet until April 28,
1998. Mr. Hartman appeared on April 28, 1998, at
2:00 P.M. but was totally unprepared to discuss
the stipulation and did not present any
additional records.
39. Due to petitioners' lack of coopera-
tion, the parties could not file a stipulation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011