Sutherland, Lillian v. Cape Air, Inc.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 LILLIAN SUTHERLAND, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2006-CV-0001 v. 5 5 HYANNIS AIR SERVICES, INC. d/b/a 5 CAPE AIR, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Chad C. Messier, Esq. ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT FOR COMPLETE RESPONSE [sic] TO DISCOVERY THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant For Complete Response [sic] to Discovery (Docket No. 30). Having reviewed the parties’ joint stipulation, the Court makes the following findings: Interrogatory No. 1: Defendant has responded adequately. No further response is necessary. Case: 1:06-cv-00001-RLF-GWC Document #: 55 Filed: 12/21/07 Page 1 of 4 Sutherland v. Hyannis Air Services, Inc. 2006-CV-0001 Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Interrogatory No. 8: Defendant has responded adequately. Its reference to documents already produced was specific and detailed enough to identify the documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). …
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-00001/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_06-cv-00001-0.pdf
SHA-256 12a79622e6d4198bc5ae3c5227fd021e81213d83148234ca9a2746fb449d2d75
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-12a79622e6d4
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 LILLIAN SUTHERLAND, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2006-CV-0001 v. 5 5 HYANNIS AIR SERVICES, INC. d/b/a 5 CAPE AIR, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Chad C. Messier, Esq. ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT FOR COMPLETE RESPONSE [sic] TO DISCOVERY THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant For Complete Response [sic] to Discovery (Docket No. 30). Having reviewed the parties’ joint stipulation, the Court makes the following findings: Interrogatory No. 1: Defendant has responded adequately. No further response is necessary. Case: 1:06-cv-00001-RLF-GWC Document #: 55 Filed: 12/21/07 Page 1 of 4 Sutherland v. Hyannis Air Services, Inc. 2006-CV-0001 Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Interrogatory No. 8: Defendant has responded adequately. Its reference to documents already produced was specific and detailed enough to identify the documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). No further response is necessary. Interrogatory No. 9: Defendant shall supplement with a narrative response regarding any procedures followed on the date of the incident. Interrogatory No. 10: Defendant shall supplement with the citation to the appropriate Federal Regulations relevant to the maintenance and operation of its aircraft. Interrogatory No. 11: Defendant shall supplement with a narrative response regarding anything that was done to maintain, clean and/or service the aircraft on the date of the incident. Interrogatory No. 14: Defendant properly narrowed the scope of the question to the wemac vent and responded adequately. No further response is necessary. Interrogatory No. 19: Defendant shall supplement properly, without waiving it’s privilege objections, regarding its contention that it has not conducted any investigation, etc. of the incident. Case: 1:06-cv-00001-RLF-GWC Document #: 55 Filed: 12/21/07 Page 2 of 4 Sutherland v. Hyannis Air Services, Inc. 2006-CV-0001 Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Interrogatory Nos. 20-24: Defendant shall supplement with any currently known facts. Demand For Production Nos. 1-4, 15, and 17: Pursuant to the holding in Dade Engineering Corp. v. Reese, No. 2005/149, 2006 WL 1222221 (D.V.I. April 13, 2006), the Court declines to find that Defendant has waived its attorney-client privilege in the absence of a privilege log. The Court will direct Defendant to submit a privilege log of withheld documents other than correspondence or communication between Defendant and its attorneys and/or paralegals. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant For More Complete Response [sic] to Discovery (Docket No. 30) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 2. Plaintiff’s motion is denied with regard to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 8, and 14. Case: 1:06-cv-00001-RLF-GWC Document #: 55 Filed: 12/21/07 Page 3 of 4 Sutherland v. Hyannis Air Services, Inc. 2006-CV-0001 Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 3. Defendant shall supplement, within ten (10) days from the date of entry of this order, its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9-11, 19-24, as more fully described hereinabove. 4. Defendant shall submit a privilege log of withheld documents, other than correspondence or communication between Defendant and its attorneys and/or paralegals, that are responsive to Demand For Production Nos. 1-4, 15, and 17. ENTER: Dated: December 21, 2007 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:06-cv-00001-RLF-GWC Document #: 55 Filed: 12/21/07 Page 4 of 4