Opinion
23639-13
11-15-2022
THOMAS GERARD REITZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Elizabeth Crewson Paris Judge
By Order dated October 20, 2022, docket entry 60, this case is calendared for trial at the remote session of the Court scheduled to commence December 5, 2022.
Included with this Order was the Standing Pretrial Order for the December 5, 2022, remote trial session, docket entry 62, which, in accordance with Rule 91,requires the parties to stipulate (agree upon in writing) to all facts and documents to the maximum extent possible no later than 14 days before the start of the trial session - by November 21, 2022, in this instance. The Standing Pretrial Order also advised: "[I]f the Court determines that [a complete stipulation of facts is not ready for submission] due to lack of cooperation by either party, the Court may order sanctions against the uncooperative party."
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Respondent contends petitioner's lack of cooperation is frustrating compliance with Rule 91 (and this Court's Standing Pretrial Order). Between September 14, 2022, and October 18, 2022, respondent alleges that his counsel made numerous unsuccessful attempts to discuss this case with petitioner. According to respondent, on two occasions, September 14, 2022, and October 19, 2022, petitioner emailed respondent's counsel stating that petitioner would not discuss this case over the telephone or sign a memorandum of understanding to enable the parties to discuss the case via e-mail.
On September 16, 2022, respondent served petitioner with written interrogatories pursuant to Rule 71 and a document request pursuant to Rule 72.According to respondent, on October 4, 2022, petitioner acknowledged by phone having received these two documents as well as a proposed Stipulation of Facts. Respondent alleges that, as of October 20, 2022, petitioner had failed to answer the posed interrogatories or to provide the requested documents.
Copies of these documents are attached as exhibits to the respective Motions that are the subject of this Order.
On October 21, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, docket entry 64, and a Motion to Compel Production of Documents, docket entry 65, pursuant to Rules 71(c), 72(b), and 104(b). Petitioner's views on these Motions are unknown. The Court will provide petitioner with an opportunity to file a written response showing cause why respondent's above-referenced Motions should not be granted.
Premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioner shall, on or before December 2, 2022, file a response to this Order showing cause why respondent's Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed October 21, 2022, docket entries 64 and 65, respectively, should not be granted and why this Court should not issue an order compelling petitioner to respond to all interrogatories posed and produce all documents requested. The parties are also reminded that this Court continues to hold respondent's Motion for Default Judgment, filed September 14, 2015, docket entry 19, under advisement.