Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02358/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02358-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7403 Suit to Enforce Federal Tax Lien

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Robert F. Smith, 

Defendant.

No. CV10-2358-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On January 25, 2012, Defendant Robert F. Smith filed a document titled “Offer of 

Proof by Affidavit.” Doc. 58. The 26-page document, containing 107 paragraphs of 

factual and legal assertions, sets forth a variety of legal and factual arguments made by 

Defendant in this case. The document states that its assertions will be deemed true if 

Plaintiff does not offer proof in rebuttal within 30 days. The document asks the Court to 

schedule a show-cause hearing. The document also makes various assertions concerning 

improper conduct and lack of authority on behalf of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. 

Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 60) and Defendant has filed a reply (Doc. 61). 

 Defendant’s Offer of Proof by Affidavit is not authorized by the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Those rules do not permit Defendant to present an offer of proof of this 

type, demand responses within 30 days, and declare that the assertions in the offer of 

proof will be deemed true unless rebutted by the opposing party. Nor do the rules allow 

Defendant to demand a show-cause hearing on the basis of an offer of proof. As a result, 

any relief requested in Defendant’s Offer of Proof by Affidavit (Doc. 58) is denied. 

Case 2:10-cv-02358-DGC Document 63 Filed 03/29/12 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 62. Defendant’s response to the motion is due on 

April 5, 2012. In responding to the motion, Defendant must comply not only with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, but also with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1. If 

Defendant fails to respond to the motion, or fails properly to present evidence giving rise 

to a question of fact or otherwise to show that Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law, the Court may grant summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff.1

 

 Dated this 28th day of March, 2012. 

 

1

 The Court’s Case Management Order (Doc. 31) established a deadline of 

November 18, 2011, for motions for summary judgment. Because the schedule in this case was delayed by Defendant’s several requests for clarification of his discovery obligations, his assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege, and his attempt to seek an interlocutory appeal, the Court will not hold the parties to that deadline and will consider 

the motion filed by Plaintiff on March 1, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-02358-DGC Document 63 Filed 03/29/12 Page 2 of 2