- 7 -
Indiana. At the calendar call, petitioners requested that the
Court schedule the trial in this case on that day. At the
calendar call, counsel for respondent informed the Court that
petitioners had failed to comply with the October 13, 2000 Order
and filed respondent’s motion to impose sanctions (respondent’s
motion for sanctions). In that motion, respondent requested the
Court to impose on petitioners pursuant to Rule 104(c) one or
more sanctions because of their failure to comply with the
October 13, 2000 Order.
We asked petitioners at the calendar call whether they had
complied with the October 13, 2000 Order. Petitioners replied
that they had not, but that they had filed with the Court peti-
tioners’ motion to reconsider. We reminded petitioners that we
had denied petitioners’ motion to reconsider. We then directed
petitioners to produce the requested trust documents to counsel
for respondent as soon as possible before trial and advised
petitioners that we would impose sanctions on them if they failed
to do so. At the conclusion of the calendar call, we informed
the parties that we were taking respondent’s motion for sanctions
under advisement, and we restated that if petitioners did not
produce the requested trust documents prior to the commencement
of the trial in this case, the Court would impose sanctions on
them because of their failure to do so.
Thereafter on October 23, 2000, this case was recalled from
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