VI Update

USVI Public Records

A VI Update Project · Brian LoudenThe territory’s public record — kept public.

Saunders, Paul H. v. The Penland Reserve Tract, Llc,

Collection
Courts
Sub-shelf
District Court of the Virgin Islands (federal)
Kind
Court Record
Island
St. Croix
Date
2008-01-24
Pages
2
Text
Native Text
Identifiers
2006-CV-0129

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 PAUL H. SAUNDERS, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2006-CV-0129 v. 5 5 THE PENLAND RESERVE TRACT, LLC and 5 ANTHONY PORTER, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Stacey E. Plaskett, Esq. Eric S. Chancellor, Esq. ORDER REGARDING MOTION OF NEIL O’ROURKE TO QUASH SUBPOENA THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Motion of Neil O’Rourke to Quash the Subpoena dated November 16, 2007 (Docket No. 29). Plaintiff filed an opposition to said motion. The time for filing a reply has expired. It is well established that “[a]n officer, director or managing agent of a corporation which is party to a lawsuit is subject to deposition on notice only, without the need for a subpoena. See, e.g., 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2107, p. 58 (2d ed. 1994).” Bro-Tech Corp. v. Thermax, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-2330, 2006 WL 3337496 (E.D. Pa. November 16, 2006). See also O’Conner v. Trans Union Corp., No. Civ. A 97-4633, 1998 WL 372667 (E.D. Pa. May 11, 1998). …

Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works

Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_06-cv-00129/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_06-cv-00129-0.pdf

SHA-256 0cbe6fe4373998b2a2f1302279ed4a711fb04a5ab2265761693d6178fce06f7f

Re-using this document

two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it

Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.

Archive identifier LF-0cbe6fe43739

Document text

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 PAUL H. SAUNDERS, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2006-CV-0129 v. 5 5 THE PENLAND RESERVE TRACT, LLC and 5 ANTHONY PORTER, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Stacey E. Plaskett, Esq. Eric S. Chancellor, Esq. ORDER REGARDING MOTION OF NEIL O’ROURKE TO QUASH SUBPOENA THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Motion of Neil O’Rourke to Quash the Subpoena dated November 16, 2007 (Docket No. 29). Plaintiff filed an opposition to said motion. The time for filing a reply has expired. It is well established that “[a]n officer, director or managing agent of a corporation which is party to a lawsuit is subject to deposition on notice only, without the need for a subpoena. See, e.g., 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2107, p. 58 (2d ed. 1994).” Bro-Tech Corp. v. Thermax, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-2330, 2006 WL 3337496 (E.D. Pa. November 16, 2006). See also O’Conner v. Trans Union Corp., No. Civ. A 97-4633, 1998 WL 372667 (E.D. Pa. May 11, 1998). Case: 1:06-cv-00129-RLF-GWC Document #: 31 Filed: 01/24/08 Page 1 of 2 Saunders v. The Penland Reserve Tract, LLC 2006-CV-0129 Order Regarding Motion of Neil O’Rourke to Quash Subpoena In the matter at bar, the Court finds that Neil O’Rourke is an officer, director or managing agent of The Penland Reserve Tract, LLC, which is a party to this lawsuit. Consequently, the Court finds that Neil O’Rourke is subject to deposition on notice only. The record reflects that Plaintiff did issue a notice of deposition for Neil O’Rourke. It appears that Plaintiff also served Neil O’Rourke with a subpoena, despite that fact that such subpoena was unnecessary. Because the date and time contained in the deposition notice has passed, the Court will cancel such notice and allow Plaintiff to re-notice the said deposition for a date, time, and location that is acceptable to the parties. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Motion of Neil O’Rourke to Quash the Subpoena (Docket No. 29) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 2. The notice of deposition (Docket No. 28) of Neil O’Rourke for December 3, 2007, is CANCELED. 3. Plaintiff may serve an amended notice of deposition for a date, time, location acceptable to the parties. ENTER: Dated: January 24, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:06-cv-00129-RLF-GWC Document #: 31 Filed: 01/24/08 Page 2 of 2