- 4 -
admitted. The Court issued a notice of filing of respondent’s
Rule 37(c) motion, which indicated that the Rule required
petitioners to file a reply by August 20, 1998. The notice
advised petitioners that filing such a reply would lead to a
denial of respondent’s motion but that upon failure to so reply
“the Court will grant respondent’s motion and deem admitted for
purposes of this case the affirmative allegations in the answer.”
When petitioners did not reply, the Court granted respondent’s
motion on August 27, 1998.
Respondent thereafter sent to the Court a document that Ms.
Kaufman mailed to respondent and which appeared to be a photocopy
of a reply to answer by Ms. Kaufman. On September 30, 1998, the
Court entered an order vacating its grant of respondent’s Rule
37(c) motion and extending to October 30, 1998, the time for
petitioners to file an originally signed reply. When this order
was returned to the Court unclaimed by the U.S. Postal Service,
reflecting another address for petitioners, the Court again
extended the date for a reply, to December 4, 1998, and directed
service of the order to the new address.
On December 18, 1998, having received no reply from
petitioners, the Court granted respondent’s Rule 37(c) motion and
ordered that “the affirmative allegations of fact set forth in
subparagraphs (a) through (g) of paragraph 6 of respondent’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011