Y’all will recall that back a couple days ago (hi, Judge Holmes) the trusty attorneys for Ivey Branch Holdings, LLC, Ivey Branch Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 19189-19, filed 8/18/25 expressed fears of getting Section 6673(a)(2) chopped if they zealously pursued their client’s valuation argument in the face of previous Tax Court rejections thereof. See my blogpost “Papering Over the Silt,” 8/14/25.

Y’all will also recall that Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber soothed their fears by refreshing their recollections that next month’s trial is only Part One of a bifurcated trial, whereat only fact witness and nongeological and nonvaluation expert testimony will be heard. The rocks-and-rolls won’t come till next year.

Except.

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding anything in the foregoing or elsewhere herein contained to the contrary (as my expensive colleagues would say), IRS counsel “served petitioner with numerous interrogatories directed to geological evidence.” Order, at p. 1.

Check it out. IRS counsel wanted a short course on kaolin, which is clay. Order, at pp. 1-2.

Judge Scholar Al is too genteel to treat this disregard of his order otherwise than as follows.

“The terminology used in many of the interrogatories is open-ended or vague. More importantly, the interrogatories do not seek information about the facts of this particular case. Rather, they seek background facts about the kaolin industry. Large-scale, generic information of this sort is not provided by fact witnesses, but by experts—either industry or geological experts. In effect, respondent is asking petitioner to disclose the type of information that could be expected to appear in expert reports that petitioner may submit relating to geological evidence and valuation. But under our pretrial Order for the second phase of trial, the parties are not obligated to exchange expert witness reports directed to these subjects until February 25, 2026.

“We agree with respondent that our Rules require each party to respond forthrightly and in good faith to reasonable discovery requests. But we think respondent’s interrogatories seek information outside the boundaries of normal fact discovery and, in effect, seek a preview of what petitioner’s experts may say in their expert witness reports.” Order, at p. 2.

Maybe so might could be that disregarding a scheduling order and attempting to undercut another order to the same effect, necessitating employment of scarce judicial resources, unduly prolongs the proceedings; ya think?