-21-
calendar call, Mr. Kauffman continued to represent petitioners.
They contend, however, that his authority was limited to seeking a
continuance on petitioners’ behalf. But if that is so, the
question arises: Exactly how did petitioners intend to proceed
when their eleventh-hour requests for continuances, made
informally in a telephonic conference on Wednesday, May 14, 2003,
were not entertained by the Court? The cases were set for trial
in Baltimore the next Monday. Insofar as the record reveals,
petitioners had done little or nothing to ready these cases for
trial. No trial memoranda had been filed on petitioners’ behalf.10
Deemed admissions appear to have resolved most of the income items
against the Gazis. Pursuant to the Court’s May 8, 2003, Order
sanctioning petitioners for failing to respond to the Court’s
March 18, 1999, Order to Show Cause, petitioners were prohibited
from introducing into evidence any testimony or documents that
would have been responsive to respondent’s discovery requests
served on petitioners February 10, 1999. The local Baltimore
counsel that Mr. Gazi had sought to retain refused to enter these
10 Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Pre-Trial Orders, dated
Dec. 18, 2002, unless a basis of settlement had been reached,
each party was required to submit a trial memorandum to the Court
no later than 15 days before the first day of the May 19, 2003,
trial session. In their trial memoranda, the parties were
required, among other things, to identify trial witnesses and
provide a brief summary of their testimony. The Court’s Standing
Pre-Trial Order states: “Witnesses who are not identified will
not be permitted to testify at the trial without leave of the
Court upon sufficient showing of cause.”
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011