- 7 -
produced no documents. Due to the inadequacy of petitioners’
informal responses, on August 8, 2002, respondent served
interrogatories on Mr. Bedford. Petitioners failed to respond to
the interrogatories.
On August 9, 2002, respondent’s requests for admission in
regard to both the Basiles and BHC were filed. Petitioners never
replied to respondent’s requests, so they are deemed admitted.
Rule 90(c).
On September 13, 2002, respondent’s motions to compel
responses to respondent’s interrogatories were filed. On
September 16, 2002, we granted respondent’s motions in that
petitioners were to serve upon respondent’s counsel “full,
complete, and responsive responses made under oath and in good
faith” to the interrogatories. We warned petitioners that if
they did not fully comply with the order, we would be inclined to
impose sanctions. Petitioners failed to comply with the
September 16, 2002, order.
On October 27, 2002, Mr. Bedford telephoned respondent’s
counsel to inform him that he was experiencing car trouble and
that he did not anticipate making it to the calendar call the
next day. On October 28, 2002, this case was called at the
Court’s Tampa, Florida, trial session. Although counsel for
respondent appeared and was heard, no appearance was made by or
on behalf of petitioners. We continued this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011