Rivera v. Sharp et al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 AMNERYS ANNETTE RIVERA 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:08-cv-20 v. 5 5 JOSEPH SHARP, CHOICE 5 COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C., and 5 ATLANTIC TELE-NETWORK, INC. 5 (ATN), 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Charles E. Engeman, Esq. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant and Its Witnesses (Docket No. 58). The time for filing 1 a response has expired. In view of the Court’s Order (Docket No. 61), entered May 29, 2009, granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines, by which the time for completing all factual discovery, including fact witness depositions, was extended to July 31, 2009, the 1. The complaint names three (3) Defendants. However, Plaintiff refers to “Defendant” and “Defendant’s” and “its” in the singular throughout her motion. Thus, even if the Court were inclined to grant the motion, it would not know whose deposition(s) Plaintiff seeks. …
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_08-cv-00020/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_08-cv-00020-2.pdf
SHA-256 44305ec3c47c8125db0a32888599254adb1663bb773f79f8dd5d0db137c49641
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-44305ec3c47c
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 AMNERYS ANNETTE RIVERA 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:08-cv-20 v. 5 5 JOSEPH SHARP, CHOICE 5 COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C., and 5 ATLANTIC TELE-NETWORK, INC. 5 (ATN), 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Charles E. Engeman, Esq. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant and Its Witnesses (Docket No. 58). The time for filing 1 a response has expired. In view of the Court’s Order (Docket No. 61), entered May 29, 2009, granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines, by which the time for completing all factual discovery, including fact witness depositions, was extended to July 31, 2009, the 1. The complaint names three (3) Defendants. However, Plaintiff refers to “Defendant” and “Defendant’s” and “its” in the singular throughout her motion. Thus, even if the Court were inclined to grant the motion, it would not know whose deposition(s) Plaintiff seeks. Case: 1:08-cv-00020-WAL-GWC Document #: 63 Filed: 06/09/09 Page 1 of 2 Rivera v. Sharp 1:08-cv-20 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Compel Court finds it unnecessary to order the depositions sought by Plaintiff within the “next two (2) weeks.” In addition, the Court notes that the motion said was filed in violation of Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37.2 and could be denied on that basis, as well. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant and Its Witnesses (Docket No. 58) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: June 9, 2009 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:08-cv-00020-WAL-GWC Document #: 63 Filed: 06/09/09 Page 2 of 2