- 5 - On February 3, 2003, the Appeals officer again wrote to petitioner to say that he had not received the information he requested; the Appeals officer gave petitioner another 10 days to supply the information. Petitioner failed to respond to the Appeals officer’s letter of February 3, 2003. Petitioner failed to attend the proposed “Branerton” conference scheduled by respondent’s counsel for February 13, 2003, failed to furnish respondent with the documents requested, and failed to contact respondent for the purpose of rescheduling the conference. On March 24, 2003, pursuant to Rule 72, respondent served on petitioner Respondent’s Request for Production of Documents. None of the requested documents were provided to respondent in response to this request. On May 5, 2003, respondent filed a motion to compel petitioner to produce the requested documents. On May 6, 2003, the Court granted respondent’s motion to compel the production of documents and ordered petitioner to produce those documents by May 20, 2003. To the extent that respondent’s motion requested sanctions if petitioner failed to comply with the Court’s order, the motion was set for hearing on June 16, 2003. Petitioner did not produce the documents by May 20, 2003, as ordered by the Court, or at any time prior to the trial date. On June 3, 2003, respondent’s counsel sent to petitioner a proposed stipulation of facts and a letter requesting that petitioner either sign the stipulation or call respondent’sPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011