Opinion
2407-19 8508-20
02-27-2023
ESTATE OF HARRY FAULK, A.K.A. HAROLD C. FAULK, DECEASED, SHARON RIVENSON-MARK, TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
David Gustafson Judge
In response to petitioner's motions to enforce subpoenas in these two consolidated cases, we issued to each of six third parties an Order to Show Cause. (See Docs. 55-60 in No. 2407-19.) By order of February 6, 2023 (Doc. 62), we directed petitioner to file a status report "in which he shall identify any motions to enforce subpoena that should be denied as moot and any orders to show cause that should be discharged, and shall recommend a routine and schedule for further proceedings, stating whether the Commissioner objects to his recommendation." In response to our order, petitioner reports (see Doc. 63) that the four of these six third parties did adequately respond to the document request that was the subject of the subpoena. As to these four of the six, petitioner states that our Order to Show Cause should be discharged, and that respondent does not object. We have so ordered. (See Docs. 65-68.)
As to the remaining two of the six third parties, petitioner states that the Order to Show Cause should not be discharged because the two third parties "have not responded to the document request contained within the subpoena." However, petitioner does not suggest any action that the Court should take (or that petitioner proposes to take) with respect to the remaining two third parties. Rather, in response to our order that he recommend a routine and schedule for further proceedings, petitioner describes reasonable activities that will involve the parties (and not third parties). Petitioner "plans to start a formal discovery process with Respondent and hopes to use that discover[y] to prepare a settlement with Respondent, and if necessary, to prepare for trial." The requested place of trial is New York, New York--a location at which the judge signing this order is not assigned for any upcoming trial session.
It is
ORDERED that, no later than March 10, 2023, petitioner shall file a status report (or another appropriate filing) that he shall (1) state whether the Court should deny as moot the two remaining motions to enforce subpoena and should discharge the two remaining orders to show cause and, if not, shall describe the action that petitioner will take or that the Court should take with respect to the two remaining third parties, (2) state whether the Court should continue this case generally so that it will be put on the calendar of an upcoming New York City trial session, and (3) state whether respondent disagrees with petitioner's position on either of the foregoing questions.