- 4 -
to petitioner proposing a conference for November 20, 2000. The
stated purpose of the conference was to commence the process of
obtaining informal discovery and preparing a stipulation of
facts. Neither petitioner nor a representative attended this
meeting.
On December 21, 2000, respondent then served on petitioner
interrogatories, a request for admissions, and a request for
production of documents. Petitioner responded on January 18,
2001, to respondent’s request for admissions but sent no response
to either the interrogatories or the request for production of
documents. As a result, respondent on February 6, 2001, filed
motions to compel responses to interrogatories and to compel
production of documents. These motions were granted by the
Court, and petitioner was ordered to comply on or before February
23, 2001. Petitioner failed to do so.
Meanwhile, on February 15, 2001, respondent’s counsel sent
to petitioner a proposed stipulation of facts. Thereafter,
following several unsuccessful attempts to communicate regarding
the pending discovery matters and proposed stipulation,
respondent on March 12, 2001, requested and was given leave to
file a motion for an order under Rule 91(f) to show cause why
proposed facts in evidence should not be accepted as established.
This motion was granted, and petitioner was ordered to show cause
at trial on March 20, 2001, why the facts and evidence recited in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011