Opinion
18663-23
07-16-2024
TIMOTHY JOHN HEINZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Jennifer E. Siegel, Special Trial Judge
On January 25, 2024, the Court deemed petitioner's misfiled interrogatories stricken from the record, explaining that "pursuant to Rules 71(c) and 72(b)(2) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, discovery requests and responses are handled between the parties, without filing or Court involvement, except insofar as concerns any motion to compel." We also reminded the parties that the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure require that the parties utilize informal discovery procedures before employing more formal ones. See Rule 70(a)(1), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Court's Rules are available on the Court's website, www.ustaxcourt.gov.
On May 28, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion For Disciplinary Action Upon Counsel for Respondent. Seeing nothing in the record that would suggest a disciplinary hearing was appropriate, the Court denied his motion by Order issued June 26, 2024. On July 1, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order.
From petitioner's latest motion, it appears that the basis of his May 28, 2024, request that the Court take disciplinary action with respect to respondent's counsel is petitioner's frustration with respondent's counsel's lack of response to the Court's Order issued January 25, 2024. But the only thing directed by that Order was that petitioner's interrogatories be deemed stricken from the record.
Premises considered, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Order is denied.