- 6 -
April 20, 2000, respondent filed a Motion to Compel Responses to
Respondent’s Second Set of Interrogatories. On the same date,
respondent filed a Motion to Review the Sufficiency of
Petitioners’ Response to Respondent’s Requests for Admission.4
The Court granted each of respondent’s above-described
motions. On April 20 and 21, 2000, the Court ordered
petitioners, on or before May 1, 2000, to (1) produce to
respondent each and every document requested in respondent’s
second request for production of documents, (2) provide
respondent with full, complete, and responsive answers to each
and every interrogatory in respondent’s second set of
interrogatories, and (3) provide respondent with complete answers
to the requested admissions. At that time, the Court also made
absolute its Order to Show Cause Under Rule 91(f), providing that
the facts and evidence set forth in respondent’s proposed
stipulation of facts were deemed established.
On May 8, 2000, following petitioners’ failure to comply
with the above-described orders,5 respondent filed a Motion to
4 The requested admissions at issue (those for which
respondent sought Court review of petitioners’ responses)
consisted of certain statements made by Mr. Lipari under oath
during a hearing in the course of petitioners’ bankruptcy case.
Mr. Lipari objected to the requested admissions on the grounds
that he was unable to recall the detail of his prior testimony.
5 Petitioners’ only correspondence with the Court during
this time period consisted of a Motion for Enlargement of Time
filed on May 8, 2000, and a Motion to Dismiss filed on May 9,
2000. Both motions were denied.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011