Attorney-at-Law

PLAY NICE OR GO HOME

In Uncategorized on 03/20/2020 at 14:59

Judge David Gustafson brooks no snark or sneer. He will allow none of the mishegas (please pardon an arcane technical term) in which certain litigators engage to vex, oppress, harass or annoy their opponents.

And it matters not whether the litigator is a pro se, petitioners’ counsel or IRS.

Here’s Peak Potentials Training International, Docket No. 23373-18, filed 3/20/20.

PPTI’s counsel, to whom I’ll hereinafter refer as John M., objected to IRS’ motion for leave to serve the exhibits, inadvertently omitted, from IRS’s response to PPTI’s summary J motion. IRS’ motion for leave was “appropriately” filed, Order, at p. 1. Likewise “appropriately,” IRS’ counsel asked John M. to consent. Id.

John M. said OK, but as I have a date certain two weeks from your response to reply to your response, and as you’re going to serve me two business days late, give me a two business days extension to reply.

IRS’ counsel, whom a docket search reveals is William A. McCarthy, Esq., in Seattle, WA, responds as follows. “Petitioner’s counsel informed respondent’s counsel that petitioner objects to the granting of this motion unless petitioner’s time to reply is also extended by two business days to April 1, 2020. Respondent’s counsel informed petitioner’s counsel that such a request would not be (and is not) part of this motion.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Gustafson: “Respondent’s description of his dealings with petitioner does not reflect the level of cooperation and courtesy that we expect and normally see. We think his position was unreasonable.” Order, at p. 2.

Motion to serve late denied without prejudice.

I’ll translate, for Mr. McCarthy’s benefit, if he reads this my blog (which I doubt): “Give him the two business days. The judge won’t object.”

I may also point out our New York Standards of Civility: “Lawyers should avoid unnecessary motion practice or other judicial intervention by negotiating and agreeing with other counsel whenever it is practicable to do so.” Section II(A). Maybe so Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley might consider adding something to this effect to Rule 201.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: