Richards Asset Mgmt. Trust, et al. - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         
          interrogatories.  In the respective September 19, 2001 Orders in            
          the cases at docket Nos. 10765-00 and 10766-00, the Court further           
          ordered respondent to file written reports in those respective              
          cases on or before October 9, 2001, informing the Court whether             
          petitioners in those cases had complied with the Court’s                    
          respective September 19, 2001 Orders.  The Court’s respective               
          September 19, 2001 Orders put petitioners on notice in the cases            
          at docket Nos. 10765-00 and 10766-00 that if they did                       
               not fully comply with the provisions of this Order,                    
               this Court will be inclined to impose sanctions pursu-                 
               ant to Tax Court Rule 104, which may include dismissal                 
               of this case and entry of a decision against petition-                 
               ers.                                                                   
               On September 14, 2001, respondent filed a motion to consoli-           
          date the instant cases for trial, briefing, and opinion, which              
          the Court granted on September 24, 2001.                                    
               On October 2, 2001, petitioners in these cases filed a                 
          motion to continue the trial (petitioners’ motion to continue)              
          “until such time as the Petitioner has time to answer th [sic]              
          Respondent’s Motion to Compel Responses to Respondent’s Interrog-           
          atories.”  In support of that motion, petitioners alleged that              
          “Petitioner is not [in] receipt of any of the interrogatories               
          that the Respondent wishes answered in a timely manner.  They               
          were apparently sent to the attorney of record who was fired.”              
          The reason quoted above for petitioners’ asking the Court to                
          grant petitioners’ motion to continue was false and groundless.             






Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011