Canton, Patrice v. Kmart Corporation
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 PATRICE CANTON, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:05-cv-143 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Eugenio W.A. Geigel-Simounet, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Kmart to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Demand For Production of Documents (Docket No. 137). Defendant filed a response titled “Addendum to Stipulation” that was docketed as a motion (Docket No. 138). This order is issued without necessity of any further response or reply. Being advised in the premises and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that factual discovery in this matter closed on July 30, 2008. Consequently, both Plaintiff’s discovery requests, propounded on March 26, 2009, and her motion to compel are untimely. Case: 1:05-cv-00143-TJS-GWC Document #: 143 Filed: 08/11/09 Page 1 of 2 Canton v. …
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_05-cv-00143/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_05-cv-00143-1.pdf
SHA-256 3e193f6e5896ca3e7e78639071c5667c38a02f5fe126b32f583f8522e1233f2a
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-3e193f6e5896
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 PATRICE CANTON, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:05-cv-143 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Eugenio W.A. Geigel-Simounet, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Kmart to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Demand For Production of Documents (Docket No. 137). Defendant filed a response titled “Addendum to Stipulation” that was docketed as a motion (Docket No. 138). This order is issued without necessity of any further response or reply. Being advised in the premises and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that factual discovery in this matter closed on July 30, 2008. Consequently, both Plaintiff’s discovery requests, propounded on March 26, 2009, and her motion to compel are untimely. Case: 1:05-cv-00143-TJS-GWC Document #: 143 Filed: 08/11/09 Page 1 of 2 Canton v. Kmart Corporation 1:05-cv-143 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Defendant Kmart to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Demand For Production of Documents (Docket No. 137) is DENIED. 2. Defendant’s Addendum to Stipulation (138) is GRANTED. ENTER: Dated: August 11, 2009 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:05-cv-00143-TJS-GWC Document #: 143 Filed: 08/11/09 Page 2 of 2