USA v. Hulick et al

Filing 122

ORDER granting 120 Motion for for Entry of Order Determining US Objection to Order of Magistrate Judge and Vacating Attorney's Fees Order Issued by Magistrate Judge. The United States' objection to the Magistrate Judge's order dated May 30, 2012 (Dkt. No. 98 ) is sustained, and that order is vacated. So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.(vln)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America
v.

Civil No. 08-cv-499-SM

David M. Hulick
Caroline P. Hulick
NOTICE OF RULING / ORDER
Re: Document No. 120, Motion for Entry of Order Determining US
Objection to Order of Magistrate Judge and Vacating Attorney's
Fees Order Issued by Magistrate Judge
Ruling:

Granted.

The United States' objection to the

Magistrate Judge's order dated May 30, 2012 (Dkt. No. 98) is
sustained, and that order is vacated.

Having carefully reviewed the

pleadings and the docket, it appears to me that in large part the
imposed sanctions followed inevitably from a mistake made by me in
granting the joint assented to motion to continue and extend
deadlines (Dkt. No. 76) and mooting the motion to continue and extend
deadlines (Dkt. No. 71) when, upon reflection, I intended the
reverse.

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the court

considered the discovery deadline extended to allow the depositions
of IRS employees before trial.

But, I cannot say it was unreasonable

for the United States to have viewed the circumstances differently

given the actual rulings entered on the docket.

While good practice

consistent with the collegiality expected in this district should
have resulted in an agreement with respect to those depositions,
particularly given the government's apparent agreement in principle
to produce the witnesses for deposition,

still, the government

could have plausibly construed my earlier rulings as justifying a
refusal to do so absent an order compelling that result, or an order
reopening and extending the discovery period for that purpose,
particularly in light of the court's known reluctance to enforce
private discovery agreements that are inconsistent with outstanding
case management orders.
So ordered.
August 8, 2012

cc:

Counsel of Record

/s/ Steven J. McAuliffe
United State District Court