Opinion
2838-23W
10-02-2023
MARY TRONGONE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On July 29, 2016, petitioner filed in this case a Motion to Supplement the Record which, essentially, is more akin to a motion to compel discovery.
Petitioner's above-referenced motion is improper at this juncture for a number of reasons. First, this Court's Rules require the parties to cooperate and participate in the informal exchange of information before seeking formal discovery. See Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691, 692 (1974). Under Rule 70(a)(1), formal discovery may not be used until a party has attempted "to attain the objectives of discovery through informal consultation or communication." Petitioner's motion does not indicate that she has attempted to obtain the information discussed in her motion through informal consultation or communication with respondent's counsel. The informal consultation required by the Court is at this time, therefore, the appropriate forum for petitioner to attempt to gather the information she seeks.
Second, if the information petitioner seeks cannot be obtained by informal communication with respondent's counsel, before filing a motion to compel petitioner must seek discovery of the information through the Court's formal discovery procedures. See, generally, Rules 70 through 72, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Discovery requests pursuant to Rules 70 through 72 are properly served on the opposing party. Those discovery requests are not filed with the Court unless it becomes necessary for the serving party to file a motion to compel discovery. See Rules 71(c) and 72(b)(2).
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Supplement the Record is recharacterized as a Motion to Compel Discovery, It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery is denied without prejudice.