Opinion
12982-20
06-15-2022
SYDNEY ANN CHANEY THOMAS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Emin Toro Judge
This innocent spouse case was tried on April 4, 2022, during the Court's San Francisco, California, trial session. By Order served April 26, 2022, Exhibits 6-J, 13-R, 29-P, 31-P, 32-P, and 33-P were each admitted into evidence without prejudice to the parties' ability to file motions to strike on or before May 23, 2022. The Order further directed that if either party filed a motion to strike, any motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support or opposition would need to be filed on or before June 13, 2022.
On May 31, 2022, counsel Megan L. Brackney filed an Entry of Appearance on behalf of petitioner.
On June 1, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Additional Time to Respond to the Court's April 26, 2022, Order. The motion noted that "[t]he undersigned counsel was only recently engaged, on a pro bono basis, to represent Petitioner" and that "[p]reviously, Petitioner was representing herself." The motion further noted that "[t]he evidentiary issues to which Petitioner wishes to respond are complex and novel." The motion requested that petitioner be permitted to file a response to the Court's April 26, 2022, Order no later than July 1, 2022. The motion explained that "the requested extension will afford Petitioner's counsel the opportunity to review the trial transcript and the exhibits at issue." The motion advised that "[t]he Commissioner does not consent to this request because the deadline for a response has already passed."
The Court's April 26, 2022, Order noted "the novelty and complexity of certain of the relevant issues" that it addressed. The Order also observed that "Ms. Thomas's presentation on these issues may benefit from the assistance of counsel (pro bono or otherwise)." In view of the foregoing and the recent appointment of pro bono counsel, the Court believed it to be in the interest of justice to permit petitioner to file a response to the April 26, 2022, Order on or before July 1, 2022. The Court therefore granted the petitioner's Motion for Additional Time in an order dated June 6, 2022 (Doc. 35). To the extent respondent believed it might suffer prejudice as a result of the Court's June 6, 2022, Order, the order invited respondent to advise the Court of steps that might be taken (including extending other deadlines) to alleviate that prejudice.
On June 9, 2022, respondent filed an unopposed Motion to Extend Time Within Which to File Respondent's Opening Brief and Subsequent Briefing Deadlines. Respondent moves the Court to extend the time within which respondent may file his opening brief and subsequent briefings until after the date all evidentiary issues are resolved.
Upon due consideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Extend Time Within Which to File Respondent's Opening Brief and Subsequent Briefing Deadlines is granted in that, if neither party files a motion to strike in response to the Court's April 26, 2022, Order on or before July 1, 2022, then the time in which respondent shall file his opening seriatim brief is extended from July 5, 2022, to August 4, 2022. It is further
ORDERED that, if either party files one or more motions to strike in response to the April 26, 2022, Order on or before July 1, 2022, then respondent's opening seriatim brief will be due 30 days after the Court resolves the evidentiary issues raised in the motion(s) to strike. It is further
ORDERED that the time in which petitioner shall file her answering seriatim brief is extended from September 6, 2022, to 60 days after respondent's opening seriatim brief is filed. It is further
ORDERED that the time in which respondent shall file his reply seriatim brief is extended from October 5, 2022, to 30 days after petitioner's answering seriatim brief is filed. It is further
ORDERED that the time in which petitioner shall file her reply seriatim brief is extended from November 4, 2022, to 30 days after respondent's reply seriatim brief is filed.