- 5 -
with the Court, pursuant to Rule 90, respondent’s request for
admissions, reflecting substantially the same matters contained
in respondent’s proposed stipulations of fact.
On April 2, 1999, Lorenzo W. Tijerina (Tijerina) filed an
entry of appearance on behalf of Dr. Beck. Also on April 2,
1999, Dr. Beck filed a motion to continue the trial, on the
ground that Tijerina needed additional time to familiarize
himself with the case and consult with Dr. Beck and respondent’s
trial attorney.
On April 5, 1999, respondent filed a motion for an order to
show cause why his proposed stipulations should not be deemed
accepted pursuant to Rule 91(f).
On April 7, 1999, the Court entered two Orders:
(1) Extending the time to April 28, 1999, for petitioners to file
their responses to respondent’s requests for admissions; and
(2) ordering petitioners to show cause on or before April 28,
1999, why the facts and evidence set forth in respondent’s
proposed stipulations should not be accepted as established for
purposes of these cases.
On April 29, 1999, Dr. Beck filed substantially identical
responses to both respondent’s request for admissions and the
Court’s Order to Show Cause Under Rule 91(f). In his responses,
Dr. Beck refused to admit or stipulate anything except a few of
the most basic facts, often stating simply “Not Admitted” or
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