- 50 -
Petitioner first complains of respondent’s attempts to
prevent or thwart petitioner’s discovery. Petitioner has failed
to support that complaint with any proposed findings of fact.
Petitioner next complains of respondent’s failure to comply with
requests for discovery from June 1990 through the middle of 1994.
By the motion for sanctions, on July 22, 1994, the petitioning
partners moved for sanctions on account of alleged discovery
abuses and violations by respondent. We denied the motion for
sanctions in its entirety. Petitioner’s proposed finding of fact
in support of this claim does not bring to our attention anything
new. Petitioner’s complaints that respondent hampered
petitioner’s presentation in the hearing and failed to stipulate
facts in anticipation of the hearing are also unsupported by the
record.
Petitioner’s final claim, that, during the hearing,
respondent introduced false and misleading testimony, is
supported by the following proposed finding of fact: “Respondent
allowed false and misleading testimony from Sterquell to be
introduced.” In support of that proposed finding of fact,
petitioner’s only reference to the record is a reference to
petitioner’s motion, made during the hearing, to strike testimony
(of Mr. Sterquell) and reconsider ruling that privilege was
waived (motion to strike). We denied the motion to strike.
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011