- 8 -
In an Order and Order to Show Cause dated July 20, 2000, the
Court ordered that respondent supplement his Motion to Impose
Sanctions with a detailed statement of any responses not yet
provided by petitioners and the manner in which petitioners’
failure to provide such responses prejudices respondent in
preparation of these cases for trial. The Court further ordered
that petitioners show cause in writing why sanctions should not
be imposed upon petitioners in accordance with the Court’s Order
dated May 30, 2000.
In respondent’s Supplement to Motion to Impose Sanctions,
respondent contended that petitioners’ failure to provide a
response to interrogatory No. 38 interferes with respondent’s
preparation of the negligence penalties issues in these cases.
In response to the order to show cause, petitioners persisted in
the unpersuasive contention that Johnson’s health problems
prevented compliance with the Court’s orders. Petitioners’
counsel, Izen, asserted that he inadvertently failed to comply
with the order with respect to interrogatory No. 38.
By Order dated August 21, 2000, the Court’s Order and Order
to Show Cause was made absolute. Respondent’s motion for
sanctions as supplemented was granted in that petitioners were
precluded at trial from introducing evidence with regard to
penalties under section 6662(a). The Court Order provided:
as a further sanction, because it appears to the Court
that petitioners’ counsel, Joe Alfred Izen, Jr., has
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011