- 5 -
issued an order in response to respondent's earlier filed
motions, requiring petitioners, by February 18, 1997, to produce
requested documents and to respond to respondent's
interrogatories. The Court held in abeyance respondent's motion
for sanctions regarding petitioners' failure to respond to the
discovery requests.
Petitioners, however, filed no response to the request for
production of documents. They did not provide answers to
interrogatories or respond to the request for admissions until
March 12, 1997, 5 days before trial.
When the case was called on March 18, 1997, respondent
agreed to the Court's vacating petitioners' deemed admissions, in
view of petitioners’ submission, albeit tardy, of responses to
those requests for admissions. Additionally, based upon
petitioners' representations that they had no documents in
response to respondent's request for production of documents,
respondent agreed to abandon that part of the earlier filed
motion that sought sanctions relating to the request for
production of documents. Respondent continued to seek sanctions
for petitioners’ untimely filing of responses to interrogatories.
In response to the motion for sanctions, the Court agreed to bar
petitioners' testimony covering matters that would have been
addressed in timely responses to interrogatories, pursuant to
Rule 104(c). Before excluding such testimony, however, the Court
required respondent to demonstrate, in each instance, not only
that the proffered testimony involved information sought in the
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