OK, it’s obligatory, not that river in Egypt. Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler has an essay in one paragraph on the effect of denial in Locust Creek LLC, Locust Creek Investors LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No.13011-20, filed 2/21/25.

There’s a brief jumpball over informal discovery, but Judge Speedy Weiler blows off the Locusts’ objection: time for informality is over, since the Locusts’ responses were subpar. The Locusts must pony up the documents IRS requested.

IRS also wants Judge Speedy Weiler to review a bunch responses to interrogatories (hi, Judge Holmes), but that’s where denial comes in.

“Rule 90(e) provides that, in some circumstances, the Court ‘may order . . . that the matter is admitted’. When the answering party engages in circumlocution, or admits in one phrase and retracts in the next, or makes invalid objections, then deemed admission may be called for. But admission should not be deemed when, as if [sic] most often the case here, the response is a flat denial. When the answering party ‘Denies [period]’, a motion to review cannot become an occasion for the Court to make a pretrial adjudication of a factual dispute. The potential sanctions (see Rule 90(g), 104(c), (d)) for an unequivocal but unwarranted denial–which sanctions might include in an appropriate instance ‘the reasonable expenses, including counsel’s fees, caused by the failure’ to admit (Rule 104(c)(4))–can be imposed only after the denial has been shown to be unwarranted.” Order, at p. 1.

The Locusts did respond; that IRS is unhappy with the response isn’t enough to reject it.

“Having reviewed the Requests, petitioner’s Responses thereto–and while finding some responses appear to be less than forthcoming–we cannot say they violate the spirit of Rule 90. Accordingly, we find it is appropriate to deny respondent’s Motion to Review.” Id., as my expensive colleagues would say.