In Uncategorized on 06/05/2020 at 15:54

No, not the 82nd Airborne Division’s unit so purposed. I have written elsewhere of my introduction to that outfit many years ago and far away.

Today Judge Vasquez gives the chronology of the rapid responses by a law firm, in William M. Dearman, III, Docket No. 5439-18, filed 6/5/20.

I know nothing of the facts of Bill3’s case, whether simple or complex, big-ticket syndicated easement or simple indocumentado, or why an attorney not a member of the team is listed in the docket search as attorney of record. So I’ll stick to Judge Vasquez’s narration.

“On February 11, 2020, respondent filed a first request for admissions. On March 20, 2020, respondent filed motions to compel production of documents and responses to interrogatories. That same day counsel for petitioner filed an entry of appearance.” Order, at p. 1.

The docket search on the Tax Court’s website states both notice of trial and standing pre-trial order had issued the previous December. I can’t tell if there was a Branerton play-nice before the discovery barrage above set forth then or thereafter.

Howbeit, when the Entry of Appearance was filed, the team also filed objections to both motions to compel. Of course, within a couple days (hi, Judge Holmes) the trial date was canceled due to COVID-19. But no virus stopped the team.

Trial or no trial, less than three weeks after coming on board, the team produced the response to the request for admissions, and within another two weeks a response to the request for responses to interrogatories. It did take the team another three weeks to respond to the documents request.

Two weeks later came the first status report. “Therein they state that petitioner has responded to respondent’s initial discovery requests and that the parties anticipate further discussions over the next 60 days.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Vasquez, unlike Judge David Gustafson who is wont to praise and encourage parties who move promptly, is laconic but helpful today.

“…on or before August 4, 2020, the parties shall file a joint status report setting forth the then present status of this case. The report should address whether respondent’s motions to compel are moot. The report should also address whether petitioner’s deemed admissions should be withdrawn or modified to reflect the filing of petitioner’s response to respondent’s first request for admissions on April 8, 2020. See Rule 90(c), (f), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.” Order, at p. 1.

A Taishoff “Good Job” goes to Simpson Gray Edmondson, Esq., Joshua W. Sage, Esq., and Charles J. Allen, Esq., Bill3’s hard-laboring counsel.

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: