The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT
On April 19, 2007, upon consideration of the United States' motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 79) and in light of defendants' failure to timely file any opposition thereto, the Court determined that the motion should be granted, as set forth in a Memorandum Opinion of that date (doc. no. 91). The accompanying Order (doc. no. 92) entered judgment for the United States and against defendants George C. Snyder and Sharon A. Snyder on the remaining counts (Counts I, II, III, and IV) of plaintiff's complaint, and dismissed defendant George C. Snyder's counterclaim against the United States with prejudice.
Subsequently, defendant George Snyder (but not Sharon A. Snyder) filed a motion to reconsider (doc. no. 99) the grant of summary judgment and to allow him to submit a response and brief in opposition to summary judgment nunc pro tunc, which this Court granted in part, permitting him to file said response and brief, by Order of April 30, 2007. (doc. no. 100). On May 4, 2007, Mr. Snyder filed the following: (i) George Snyder's Opposition to the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 106); (ii) Declaration of George Snyder in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 107); and (iii) Response of George Snyder to the United States' Statement of Material Issues Not in Dispute (doc. no. 108). Sharon Snyder filed an Adoption, in Part, of George Snyder's Opposition to the Summary Judgment (doc. no. 110), which was denied as she had not filed a motion to reconsider this Court's grant of summary judgment. Thereafter, the United States filed a Reply Memorandum (doc. no. 114), countering defendant George Snyder's factual and legal assertions.
After careful consideration of the above, the United States' motion for summary judgment and brief in support, and the entire record adduced on summary judgment, the Court reaffirmed, by Order dated May 24, 2007 (doc. no. 115), its grant of summary judgment for the plaintiff United States of America and against defendants George and Sharon Snyder, and directed the United States to "file an affidavit of current indebtedness, giving Defendants all appropriate credit for additional payments made towards the 1988 tax liability through seizure of George Snyder's social security checks, and a proposed Final Order of Court reflecting the exact indebtedness as of that date."
On June 18, 2007, after considering the government's affidavit filed on June 15, 2007, this Court entered a Judgment Order (doc. no.118) for plaintiff, entering Judgment against George C. Snyder in the total amount of $3,033,741.68, and against Sharon Snyder in amount of $1,808,676.70. Neither George nor Sharon Snyder lodged any objections to the Court's Order of May 24, 2007 directing the government to file an affidavit or requested any other relief. However, on June 20, 2007, Defendant George Snyder filed a "Motion for Reconsideration of the Judgment Entered at Document No. 118, and All Interlocutory Orders Granting Summary Judgment" (doc. no. 119), asserting he did not have an opportunity to object to the government's final calculation of his indebtedness.
Given Mr. Snyder's track record in this case, the Court did not believe he had any legitimate objections to raise or the inclination to raise them properly, that is, in a serious, non- frivolous manner. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution and because of the magnitude of the Judgment, this Court granted Mr. Snyder's motion to reconsider the final judgment, and issued a briefing schedule for objections to the final judgment only. Defendant offered no reason why this Court should reconsider any of the "Interlocutory Orders Granting Summary Judgment," and, in fact, the Court already reconsidered those rulings once, Order of Court dated May 24, 2007 (doc. no. 115), and declined to do so a second time. The Court's Order of June 25, 2007 (doc. no. 121) stated as follows:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before July 16, 2007, defendant shall file his Objections to Final Judgment addressed solely to plaintiff's calculation of indebtedness and stating specifically his alternative calculation, with supporting affidavits and documents attached, and accompanied by a separate brief in support of his position. On or before July 26, 2007, the government shall file a response thereto, with supporting affidavits and documents attached, and accompanied by a separate brief in support of its position. Said briefs shall not exceed ten pages.
Order of Court, June 25, 2007 (doc. no. 121).
Thereafter, on July 18, 2007, the Court granted Mr. Snyder a five day extension of time in which to file his objections with affidavits and documents attached. In the Order granting the extension (doc. no. 123), this Court explicitly laid out the ground rules Mr. Snyder was to follow, stating:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any exhibits and documents submitted in support of said objections and response shall be clearly identified and marked (e.g., Exhibit A, Exhibit B, etc.) and consecutively numbered in the lower right hand corner, and shall be accompanied by a Table of Contents with reference to the pages at which said Exhibits shall be found.
What happened thereafter is somewhat bizarre.
On July 23, 2007, Mr. Snyder submitted his "Declaration and Objections to the Government's Assessment" (doc. no. 124) and nine separate exhibits (docs. no. 125-133), followed on July 30, 2007, by seven additional exhibits (docs. no. 135-141) that had been "erroneously [filed] in the related criminal case . . . at Entries 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 72 . . ." Declaration and Objections (doc. no. 124), at ¶ 1.
In said Declaration and Objections, Mr. Snyder asserts that the IRS has "denied him" discovery of information needed for him to accurately challenge its calculation, without explaining why he had never filed with this Court any motion to compel any discovery to which he believed he was entitled and that the government was allegedly withholding. Nevertheless, Mr. Snyder has enough information, apparently, to be able to state unequivocally: ...