- 20 -
differed. As to their more targeted references to the briefing
schedule, the Court acted to assuage such concerns by advising
the parties to address the duty of consistency in their reply
briefs and extending the time for them to do so. Finally,
regarding their allusions to cooperation, the Court would simply
note that respondent in this case filed a motion to compel
production of documents and a motion to compel responses to
interrogatories, both of which the Court found appropriate to
grant. Suffice it to say that the record does not support any
suggestion on petitioners’ part that their cooperation has been
exemplary.
On reply brief, petitioners essentially reprise their
objections to permitting respondent to raise the duty of
consistency posttrial and, in apparent disregard of the warning
in the Court’s May 2, 2007, order, make no meaningful attempt to
address the substance of the affirmative defense. In opposing
amendment, they also make the somewhat baffling allegation that
respondent’s motion to amend is premised on a contention that
respondent only learned at trial of petitioners’ position that
Ms. Quinn was restricted from trading in securities on account of
her employment. Respondent, however, takes no such stance.
As previously explained, the critical information obtained
at trial on which respondent’s motion is based pertains to
Ms. Quinn’s 1999 tax reporting. Petitioners’ assertions as to
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007