Opinion
3052-21
04-11-2023
GARDEN LAKES ESTATES, LLC, GARDEN LAKES ESTATES HOLDINGS, LLC, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
David Gustafson Judge
In compliance with our order of March 21, 2023 (Doc. 32), the parties filed a joint motion for continuance, in which they gave a helpful description of a group of 50 conservation easement cases related to this one and of counsel's collaboration in recommending an orderly and economical approach to resolving the cases. We appreciate counsel's work on these cases, and we agree in principle with the proposition that the economies of the parties and the Court would be served by identifying a small number of "exemplar" cases, scheduling them for trial, and receiving in the non-exemplar cases stipulations to be bound by the outcome in an exemplar. Counsel understand that a single judge who is assigned to an essentially random sample from among the 50 cases (while other cases are assigned to another judge and others are still in the General Docket under the immediate responsibility of the Chief Judge) is not in a position to adopt the parties' recommendations and assign judges. But their making their proposal in a single case does provide an occasion for one judge to learn more and perhaps to become able to make a recommendation to Court as a whole.
We will, however, order the parties to file a status report, in which they can address questions that, if answered, might better inform the Court's evaluation of their proposal. The questions we have in mind are:
+ Geography seems to be the major factor behind assigning cases to groups. What is the significance of geography for cases which are to be bound by the result in another case? Could the parties to a Texas case stipulate to be bound to the outcome of a South Carolina case? Apart from geography, are
there different substantive issues in each of the groups? Or are different witnesses required for trial in each of the groups?
+ Are there any factual or legal issues that are common to cases in two or more groups that should be addressed for the 50 cases as a whole? That is, could such broadly common issues be included in an agreement to be bound or should they be resolved in a stipulation which would narrow the issues for trial?
+ Has either party prepared a chart, that it would be willing to share with the Court, that shows the issues in or the features of the cases in each group that are different from (or are the same as) the cases in the other groups?
+ The five cases in Group 1 and the twenty cases in Group 2 all seem to be South Carolina cases. Why are these cases proposed to be in two groups rather than one? Why do you recommend that the exemplar from the smaller South Carolina group be tried first (i.e., ahead of the twenty cases in Group 2)?
+ Would it be possible to eliminate Group 4, since it seems to be a miscellaneous group for which stipulations to be bound cannot now be expected, and divide those cases among the other groups? Or, if Group 4 should not be eliminated, could some cases in Group 4 be combined to form a new Group 5, with its own exemplar to which the parties could file stipulations to be bound?
+ To what extent (if any) would the parties be amenable to having their trials not in the locations requested but in Washington, D.C.? Doing so might sometimes make it easier to schedule trials, add days to the trial, and extend the hours of trial on a given day.
+ If the parties want to have their trials in locations other than Washington, D.C., but they anticipate a number of remote witnesses, would they be amenable to calling the in-person witnesses on location and then calling the remote witnesses the following week over Zoom? This would make D.C. resources available to the judge, and might involve some economies for the parties.
So that the Court can determine how it should proceed, it is
ORDERED that the motion for continuance is granted in part, in that this case will not be called for trial during the session beginning May 8, 2023, but is denied in part, in that another judge is not assigned to this case and the related cases but rather the judge signing this order retains jurisdiction over this case. However, it is also
ORDERED that this case is calendared for a pretrial hearing at the Court's Washington, D.C., trial session beginning at 10:00 a.m. (ET) on Monday, May 8, 2023, in the South Courtroom of the United States Tax Court, 400 Second Street, NW, Washington, D.C., 20217, for possible activity other than trial. It is further
ORDERED that, no later than April 28, 2023, the parties shall file a status report (or another appropriate filing), in which they shall address (jointly or separately) the questions stated above. If the parties believe that this information could be best conveyed in person at an appointed time during the trial session set to begin May 8, 2023, then they may file a motion for a date and time certain during that session, and we will hold an on-the-record pretrial conference. It is further
ORDERED that, if the parties agree on an alternative means or schedule by which they might be able to provide the sort of information that this order seeks, then they may place a call (at 202-521-0850) to the Chambers Administrator of the judge signing this order for the purpose of scheduling a telephone conference among the Court and parties, so that the parties can recommend their alternative. However, we do not expect an off-the-record telephone call to serve as a substitute for a written supplement or an on-the-record pretrial conference.