Elena Murphy, as Mother and Next Friend of Desiree Irizarry Murphy, A Minor v. Carribean Auto Mart of St. Croix
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 ELENA MURPHY, as mother and next of 5 friend of Desiree Irizarry Murphy, a Minor, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2006-CV-0040 v. 5 5 GRACIELA RIVERA; CARIBBEAN AUTO 5 MART OF ST. CROIX, INC.; JAMAL 5 MISBEH d/b/a A One Mini Mart & Service 5 Station; and LUIS DANIEL RIVERA, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq. Douglas L. Capedville, Esq. Jomo Meade, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff and Defendant Caribbean Auto Mart’s Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Caribbean Auto Mart For Complete Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 89). Having reviewed the joint stipulation and upon due consideration thereof, the Court makes the following findings concerning the discovery requests at issue: Case: 1:06-cv-00040-RLF-GWC Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/08 Page 1 of 3 Murphy v. Rivera 2006-CV-0040 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Interrogatory Nos. …
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-00040/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_06-cv-00040-0.pdf
SHA-256 3114e9caf218ea688a04a1de8598714fd3ed3e255703dc26531647d3c058f7ae
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-3114e9caf218
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 ELENA MURPHY, as mother and next of 5 friend of Desiree Irizarry Murphy, a Minor, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2006-CV-0040 v. 5 5 GRACIELA RIVERA; CARIBBEAN AUTO 5 MART OF ST. CROIX, INC.; JAMAL 5 MISBEH d/b/a A One Mini Mart & Service 5 Station; and LUIS DANIEL RIVERA, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq. Douglas L. Capedville, Esq. Jomo Meade, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff and Defendant Caribbean Auto Mart’s Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Caribbean Auto Mart For Complete Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 89). Having reviewed the joint stipulation and upon due consideration thereof, the Court makes the following findings concerning the discovery requests at issue: Case: 1:06-cv-00040-RLF-GWC Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/08 Page 1 of 3 Murphy v. Rivera 2006-CV-0040 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12: These interrogatories purportedly concern said Defendant’s second and fourth affirmative defenses. A review of said Defendant’s answer reveals that said Defendant’s second affirmative defense does not assert failure to mitigate damages as stated in Interrogatory No. 11. Likewise, said Defendant’s fourth affirmative defense does not assert that Plaintiff’s damages were sustained as a result of Plaintiff’s own actions as stated in Interrogatory No. 12; rather, the fourth affirmative defense asserts that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for punitive damages. Consequently, the Court finds these interrogatories to be nonsensical. As such, said Defendant is not required to provide a “complete response” to same. Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14: These interrogatories concern said Defendant’s fifth and seventh affirmative defenses. A review of said Defendant’s answer reveals that said Defendant’s fifth affirmative defense asserts a statute of limitations Case: 1:06-cv-00040-RLF-GWC Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/08 Page 2 of 3 Murphy v. Rivera 2006-CV-0040 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel defense and the seventh affirmative defense reserves the right to amend the said answer. Neither of these affirmative defenses contain anything remotely resembling the allegations of the interrogatories at issue. The Court finds that said Defendant cannot provide complete responses to these interrogatories. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Caribbean Auto Mart For Complete Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 89) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: February 22, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:06-cv-00040-RLF-GWC Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/08 Page 3 of 3