Nathaniel, Sherline Williams v. American Airlines
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX SHERLINE WILLIAMS NATHANIEL, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, Defendant. ____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 2007/0033 ORDER FINCH, J. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Appeal From Magistrate Judge’s Order Entered April 16, 2008 Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Rule 26 Disclosures. After careful consideration and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Appeal From Magistrate Judge’s Order Entered April 16, 2008 Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Rule 26 Disclosures is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. ORDERED that the Magistrate’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the telephone numbers and home addresses of Defendant’s employees is AFFIRMED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not be permitted to obtain the telephone numbers and home addresses of Defendant’s employees listed on Defendant’s Initial Rule 26 Disclosures. …
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_07-cv-00033/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_07-cv-00033-2.pdf
SHA-256 1d67c53fa29ef365765f4eb9ed49f3688210ad32d1c402c21f66c561d29e3949
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-1d67c53fa29e
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX SHERLINE WILLIAMS NATHANIEL, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, Defendant. ____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 2007/0033 ORDER FINCH, J. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Appeal From Magistrate Judge’s Order Entered April 16, 2008 Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Rule 26 Disclosures. After careful consideration and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Appeal From Magistrate Judge’s Order Entered April 16, 2008 Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Rule 26 Disclosures is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. ORDERED that the Magistrate’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the telephone numbers and home addresses of Defendant’s employees is AFFIRMED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not be permitted to obtain the telephone numbers and home addresses of Defendant’s employees listed on Defendant’s Initial Rule 26 Disclosures. It is further Case: 1:07-cv-00033-RLF-GWC Document #: 46 Filed: 11/20/08 Page 1 of 3 2 ORDERED that the Magistrate’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel disclosure of Defendant’s passenger manifest is REVERSED. It is further ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge shall issue a confidentiality order between the parties to protect the privacy interests of persons listed on Defendant’s passenger manifest. It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with the names and, if available, the address and telephone number of each passenger listed on Defendant’s passenger manifest within thirty (30) days of the date of the protective confidentiality order. ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2008. ________________/s/_______________________ HONORABLE RAYMOND L. FINCH SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Case: 1:07-cv-00033-RLF-GWC Document #: 46 Filed: 11/20/08 Page 2 of 3 3 Case: 1:07-cv-00033-RLF-GWC Document #: 46 Filed: 11/20/08 Page 3 of 3