Judge Cary Douglas (“CDP”) Pugh notes that she has been acting as referee in the ongoing discovery jousts in Conrad Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries, Docket No. 8359-23, filed 9/20/24. The foregoing order is a split decision, but that’s not why I’m blogging it.

Rather, this order is a springboard for a Taishoff suggestion to US Tax Court. Some of my past suggestions have emerged after years of hibernation in some ” dark unfathom’d caves” beneath The Glasshouse on Second Street, NW; whether direct from me or from some august assemblage or personage who think as I do doesn’t matter.

What matters is that the results “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

I propose that either a Special Trial Judge or designated law clerk be assigned the task of sorting out all discovery disputes. I submit it is wasteful for highly qualified Tax Court Judges to spend valuable time and scarce resources on whether a response to a document discovery demand or interrogatory satisfies the demander’s most cherished result.

It should be unnecessary to point out that our State Courts deal with such matters by designating judges’ law secretaries, law clerks (either post-graduate fellows or permanent cadre), special referees or magistrates, as do the Article III Courts (except in special circumstances where resolution of the dispute will provide rules of general application). Of course, the trial judge (if appointed) or another judge should review the outcome of the designee’s lucubration.

But the “win your case at discovery” types will soon discover that their favorite stalling and harassing tactics will not sway the judge.

I invite comment and criticism.