Opinion ID: 781269
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Motion for Continuance Relating to Count 3

Text: 34 In March 1998, Bogosian discovered a discarded CD ROM containing hundreds of internal WRC documents. One year later, as directed on remand, see Bogosian, 158 F.3d at 9, the district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing to determine Bogosian's one-third portion of the tax liability which WRC incurred upon the sale of certain corporate properties in order to generate the funds with which to acquire her WRC shares, pursuant to WRC's count 3 statutory election. 35 The day before the scheduled hearing, Bogosian submitted a motion to continue, citing a further need to extract and evaluate the newly-discovered CD-ROM documents. She contended that at least one of the extracted CD-ROM documents suggested that (i) WRC had committed fraud on the court at the pre-remand hearing regarding count 3, during which the district court placed a valuation on the WRC assets and cash flow; (ii) a portion of the sales proceeds from one piece of property was diverted covertly by WRC to other corporate purposes; and (iii) WRC overstated, by one hundred percent, the capital gains it realized from the sale. 36 Bogosian now maintains that (i) the district court allowed insufficient time for her to retrieve the documents relating to certain suspicious business practices, vaguely described by her counsel as the marking-up of WRC's payroll and the mishandling of insurance proceeds, and (ii) these documents reflected that WRC had initiated these activities prior to February 1989 ( viz., the date Bogosian was terminated), thus tending to suggest that her brothers had a motive for freezing her out of WRC ( viz., in order to conceal their own misfeasance from her). We discern no abuse of discretion in these rulings. See N.E. Drilling, Inc., 243 F.3d at 35. 37 At the March 30 hearing, Bogosian sought a three-week delay to study the contents of the CD-ROM. Over defendants' objection, the district court allowed as how the proffered evidence appeared to be relevant to the disposition of count 3, then granted the continuance. Furthermore, when the district court proposed to suspend the accrual of interest on the count 3 fund, Bogosian's counsel expressed ready agreement. 38 Thereafter, at a hearing held on April 28, Bogosian's counsel requested yet another thirty-day continuance within which to depose WRC's controller concerning the previously-discussed land sale, stating emphatically: After 30 days is up, that's it, we are ready for trial, and [a]ll I am asking for is 30 days, and to get on with this trial. 39 On the ample basis of these representations, the district court granted the requested continuance for the limited purpose of deposing the WRC controller. 40 At a hearing on July 30, however, Bogosian requested yet another round of discovery — even though she had yet to depose the WRC controller — contending that (i) the CD-ROM documents had demonstrated that the WRC had a much larger monthly cash flow in 1996 than the $9,500 previously represented to the court, (ii) we ... can envision a situation ... where WRC was being used as a private cookie jar [ i.e., improperly and surreptitiously to syphon off cash to its shareholders], (iii) WRC's so-called compulsion to sell its assets in order to buy out her shares probably was a ruse, and (iv) accordingly, Bogosian should not be held accountable for her one-third share of the tax liability associated with the sale of those shares. 41 The choice of the term envision by Bogosian's counsel was telling indeed. Pressed by the court, counsel admitted that he had no basis for claiming [that WRC did not have to sell the properties], but that additional discovery might disclose cash diversions by insiders. Then and there, the district court made clear that it would not permit additional discovery, unless there's really newly discovered evidence here, and that Bogosian had submitted no motion for new trial showing [any] newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for additional discovery, then seriously took under advisement appellees' motion for sanctions. 42 Given the exceptionally sorry travel of this case, the instant contention can only be deemed utterly frivolous. Far from abusing its discretion, the district court proceeded to allow the continuances requested by Bogosian's counsel to study the CD ROM documents and conduct limited depositions. Thereafter, it reasonably drew the line when Bogosian acknowledged that she had no newly-discovered evidence warranting further discovery. See Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Signal Composites, 244 F.3d 189, 193 (1st Cir. 2001) (noting that appellant concedes, however, that it has no evidence that it will receive contradictory testimony ... [and][w]e will not allow [it] to go on a `fishing expedition,' with the mere `hope' that it will obtain such information) (citation omitted). 8 43