- 7 -
Respondent’s motion also emphasized that, if petitioners failed
to comply with respondent’s discovery request, petitioners’ case
could be dismissed under Rule 123 and other sanctions, including
a penalty under section 6673, could apply. The Court issued an
Order dated July 28, 2003, ordering petitioners to comply with
respondent’s discovery request and scheduling the sanction
portion of the motion for the Louisville trial session.
Respondent’s counsel served his pretrial memorandum with a
copy to petitioners on August 22, 2003. Respondent’s memorandum
again addressed the section 6673 penalty that was first advanced
in respondent’s motion to compel.
Petitioners failed to file a pretrial memorandum, and
petitioners failed to prepare their case for trial in violation
of this Court’s Standing Pretrial Order. Petitioners also failed
to comply with Rule 91 that requires parties to stipulate to as
many facts as possible.
On the Thursday before the Louisville trial session,9
petitioner orally requested a motion to continue. Petitioner
explained that his mother was having eye surgery, and he needed a
continuance so he could attend to his mother’s medical needs.
The Court denied petitioners’ request for continuance and ordered
9 As late as the Friday before the Louisville trial session,
petitioner steadfastly maintained that he had all the necessary
documentation. He simply needed more time to locate the
“missing” documents.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011