Omnibus motions are a regular feature of litigation in both State and Federal courts. It is economical to dispose of whatever impedimenta can be dealt with pretrial.

Hence Jerry Fitzgerald’s trusty attorneys file an omnibus motion to “quash respondent’s deposition notice and subpoena, motion for protective order, and opposition to motion to compel.” Rising Rock Partners, LLC, Robert Schill, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, et al., Docket No. 23614-21, filed 3/3/25. Jerry is a nonparty; his exact role, if any, in the case is unclear from the text of the order.

Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves tosses Jerry’s motion and supporting memorandum, but allows two (count ’em, two) separate motions and a separate opposition if trusty attorneys wish.

Rule 54(b) requires separate motions. And I can see why putting opposition to an adversary’s motion in one’s own motion (other than a cross-motion) might potentially confuse an adversary. Of course, hitting a pro se with a shotgun motion is unfair.

But here IRS is on the receiving end. IRS’ attorneys have been around the block a couple times (hi, Judge Holmes), and I am sure were nowise befogged by Jerry’s documents. Judge Tag Greaves has unscrambled many frittatas during his tenure on the Tax Court bench, surely much more complicated than that posed by Jerry’s trusty attorneys, even though a source tells me that one such has been “listed as a Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch in Tax Law since 2021,” an honor to which I have never aspired.

I most respectfully suggest that when Judge Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda takes up the Chieftainship in June, he cast a glance at Rule 54(b), and helps me (and perhaps Jerry’s trusty attorneys) understand the rationale behind the Rule.