- 11 - to fully cooperate in the stipulation of facts in accord with the Court’s Rules and to comply with the requirements of the Court’s Rules and Orders for trial. Shortly thereafter, respondent moved to consolidate Case I and Case II, and the Court ordered petitioners to respond or object by January 31, 2003. Petitioner, in a motion filed February 10, 2003, moved for additional time to respond, and in a response dated February 19, 2003, petitioners contended that the cases should not be consolidated because they would not be able to prepare for trial by May 12, 2003. The consolidation motion was granted, and Case I and Case II were not continued from the May 12, 2003, Trial Session. On April 9, 2003, respondent moved that the trial of the consolidated cases be set to begin on a date certain of May 19, 2003 (the second week of the scheduled calendar in Denver, Colorado), in part to accommodate nine Government employees whose testimony had been subpoenaed by petitioners. In their April 25, 2003, response to respondent’s motion, petitioners requested that the case be scheduled for a date certain on or after October 1, 2003. As a reason for the extended time, petitioner Hook explained that other matters connected with her law practice had been or were being scheduled during May and through September of 2003. The trial of both cases was set by an Order, dated AprilPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011