In Uncategorized on 04/27/2015 at 22:48

No, not a misspelled reprise of the 1934 James F. Hanley classic immortalized by Judy Garland; rather, this is a “zing” delivered most gently by that Obliging jurist, Judge David Gustafson, both to petitioners and to IRS, in Xing F. Wang & Kathleen P. Lee, Docket No. 1269-14, filed 4/27/15.

Trial is set for fewer than seven weeks from now, but IRS’s counsel gets in an uproar about the 89 requests for admissions that they served last October, to which Xing and Kathy promptly responded last November. Xing gave IRS the right-about-face as to items 12 through and including 89.

Now Judge Gustafson is the embodiment of patience, but Xing needs a few words of encouragement, which Judge Gustafson delivered in a phone conference with the parties, but upon which he here elaborates.

“The undersigned judge discussed briefly with the parties the motion to review, as well as respondent’s motions to compel, as to which petitioners’ responses are due to be filed and served May 4, 2015. The judge stated that, without prejudging the motions, he believes petitioners should reconsider carefully their objections to respondent’s document requests and interrogatories and should serve by May 4 any documents or responses to which respondent is fairly entitled. The judge pointed out that petitioners will have the burden of proof at trial and that a lack of information in that context may harm the petitioners. The judge instructed petitioners to be responsive to communications from their opponent and to cooperate in pretrial preparation, especially the preparation of the parties’ joint stipulation of facts.” Order, at p. 1.

OK, so Xing has to reconsider. But how about IRS’s counsel?

“…respondent’s motion to review filed April 21, 2015, is denied, in view of the relative lateness of its filing, petitioners’ unqualified denial of most of the requests for admission, and the availability of the stipulation process to achieve admission of the agreed facts.” Order, at p.2.

IRS, if you don’t like Xing’s answers, see my blogpost “Asked And Answered”, 12/24/13, where Judge Holmes (I’ll spare you the honorifics) show much less gentility.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: