AmerGen Energy Co. ex rel. Exelon Generation Co. v. United States

OPINION

BUSH, Judge.

The court now has before it Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Answers to Requests for Admission (Pl.’s Mot.), defendant’s response brief (Def.’s Opp.) and plaintiffs reply brief (Pl.’s Reply).1 For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs motion is denied. To the extent that plaintiffs reply brief also requests that the court compel defendant to answer plaintiffs first set of inteiTOgatories and second request for document production, Pl.’s Reply at 1 n. 1, that request is denied as well.

BACKGROUND

I. Relevant Facts2

This is a readjustment of partnership items case under the Tax Equity…