Given the current Federal employment situation and allied matters to which I shall not allude in this avowedly nonpolitical blog, it would not surprise me if my readers asked me why I waste their time with John R. Dee, Docket No. 15135-17W, filed 2/27/25. Obviously IRS collected something, or else this five-year-old whistleblower case would have been thrown on the Li heap long since. So there is at least a semblance of basis for the petition. And John, pro se, has kept the thing going, despite failing to appeal rejection of his motion to seal “permanently.”

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”)  Buch rejects John’s motion to require IRS to file the administrative record because the caption is wrong (uses the docket number, not his name); John wants the document filed and that’s not production; John made no formal demand to produce on IRS, without which there is nothing to compel; and Rule 93 requires the filing John seeks within 45 days from setting of trial, which turns out to set the deadline  this coming Monday.

Even if Judge Buch granted the motion, “it would merely delay the relief he seeks. Common practice is to provide a nonmoving party an opportunity to respond to a motion and then decide the motion. And in the case of a discovery motion, if that motion is ultimately granted, common practice is to provide a reasonable time for the compelled party to provide the compelled discovery. Given these norms, any action on Mr. Dee’s motion would extend the date for filing the administrative record well beyond the date already established by the Court’s Rules.” Order, at p. 2.

If Judge Buch were required to list the five (count ’em, five) most important tasks he performed this week (may it never happen!), I very much doubt this order would be among them.