- 8 - witness merely for the purpose of probing veracity and credibility. As this Court previously stated with disapproval in another proceeding involving Rule 75: “It does not appear that any purpose would be served by deposing Nick except to get Nick’s testimony before the trial.” DeLucia v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 804, 813 (1986). Hence, we conclude that before the Court will order a deposition pursuant to Rule 75, the requesting party must allege with a greater degree of specificity than has been shown in this proceeding the nature of the information sought and the grounds for the party’s belief that such will be forthcoming from a particular deponent. Here, the first of petitioners’ reasons for deposing Mr. Darwish, to test the extent of his knowledge and his veracity, amounts to little more than a request to cross-examine Mr. Darwish before trial. The second reason, to determine whether Mr. Darwish is aware of any further information or witnesses which can shed light on his allegations, merely seeks to interrogate Mr. Darwish generally in the imperfectly formed hope that something might turn up. In addition, from a practical standpoint, we note that there exists even less justification for such unarticulated probing in the unique circumstances of this case than might be present in other scenarios. Petitioners have already had the opportunity to review the substance of Mr. Darwish’s allegations in three forms,Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011