Pecoraro, Daniel v. Henry, Claudius M.D.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 DANIEL PECORARO, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:07-cv-7 v. 5 5 CLAUDIUS HENRY, M.D., and THE 5 GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN 5 ISLANDS, 5 5 Defendants. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. James L. Hymes, III, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Henry to Supplement His Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 83). The time for filing a response has expired.1 At issue are three (3) demands for production of documents, specifically demands numbered 1 through 3. Plaintiff has indicated that said Defendant maintains the position 1. Plaintiff purports to satisfy the requirements of LRCi 37.2. However, the stipulation filed as an attachment with said motion is unexecuted. …
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-00007/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_07-cv-00007-1.pdf
SHA-256 3953b851a6f275e3b1eee0c3280f855adc1ab7fbab856ba3741152a1a5aa6b08
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-3953b851a6f2
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 DANIEL PECORARO, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:07-cv-7 v. 5 5 CLAUDIUS HENRY, M.D., and THE 5 GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN 5 ISLANDS, 5 5 Defendants. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. James L. Hymes, III, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Henry to Supplement His Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 83). The time for filing a response has expired.1 At issue are three (3) demands for production of documents, specifically demands numbered 1 through 3. Plaintiff has indicated that said Defendant maintains the position 1. Plaintiff purports to satisfy the requirements of LRCi 37.2. However, the stipulation filed as an attachment with said motion is unexecuted. Taken together with Plaintiff’s representation that counsel stated that he “would stand by” his original responses, the Court will treat the unexecuted stipulation as evidence of counsel’s refusal to sign, despite that fact that moving counsel failed to provide the requisite certification as specified in LRCi 37.2(c)(2). The Court cautions counsel to adhere to the specific requirements of LRCi 37.2. Case: 1:07-cv-00007-LDD-GWC Document #: 84 Filed: 04/16/10 Page 1 of 2 Pecoraro v. Henry 1:07-cv-7 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel taken in his original responses; namely, that he does not have access to the requested documents. The Court will deny the motion. All of the documents sought by Plaintiff pertain to meetings and members of the Medical Malpractice Review Committee. Plaintiff does not allege that said Defendant is a member of such review committee nor that he otherwise would have access to such information maintained by the committee by virtue of his professional status. Plaintiff appears to claim that the committee reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant and, thus, by virtue of being the subject of review, said Defendant would automatically have access to the documents requested. However, without further evidence, the Court cannot conclude that said Defendant’s status as the subject of committee review automatically bestows upon him the authority to access the committee’s internal documents and information. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Henry to Supplement His Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 83) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: April 16, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:07-cv-00007-LDD-GWC Document #: 84 Filed: 04/16/10 Page 2 of 2