DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 FORREST THOMAS, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2003-CV-0163 v. 5 5 CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS 5 CORP., CENTENNIAL CRIBBEAN 5 HOLDING CORP., and CENTENNIAL 5 USVI OPERATIONS CORP., 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Simone R.D. Francis, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Expert Report of Paul F. White and to Preclude Him From Testifying (Docket No. 160) and Motion to Stay Rebuttal Deadline (Docket No. 161). Defendant Centennial USVI Operations Corp. filed an opposition to each motion. The time for filing any reply has expired. With regard to Plaintiff’s motion to strike, the record reflects that Defendant Centennial USVI Operations Corp. filed a Notice of Defendant’s Designation of Paul F. White as an Expert Witness (Docket No. 152), by the deadline for naming its experts. Although Mr. White’s report was not submitted at the same time as his designation, said Case: 1:03-cv-00163-DWA-GWC Document #: 179 Filed: 05/22/09 Page 1 of 3 Thomas 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_03-cv-00163/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_03-cv-00163-0.pdf
SHA-256 5076cffdf36aaabe0705ff8312503896a703781be097143c0dbcabe82e45d433
Re-using this document
A work of the United States Government. Not subject to copyright in the United States under 17 U.S.C. § 105, and therefore in the public domain from the moment it was created.
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-5076cffdf36a
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 FORREST THOMAS, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2003-CV-0163 v. 5 5 CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS 5 CORP., CENTENNIAL CRIBBEAN 5 HOLDING CORP., and CENTENNIAL 5 USVI OPERATIONS CORP., 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Simone R.D. Francis, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Expert Report of Paul F. White and to Preclude Him From Testifying (Docket No. 160) and Motion to Stay Rebuttal Deadline (Docket No. 161). Defendant Centennial USVI Operations Corp. filed an opposition to each motion. The time for filing any reply has expired. With regard to Plaintiff’s motion to strike, the record reflects that Defendant Centennial USVI Operations Corp. filed a Notice of Defendant’s Designation of Paul F. White as an Expert Witness (Docket No. 152), by the deadline for naming its experts. Although Mr. White’s report was not submitted at the same time as his designation, said Case: 1:03-cv-00163-DWA-GWC Document #: 179 Filed: 05/22/09 Page 1 of 3 Thomas v. Centennial Communications Corp. 2003-CV-0163 Order Defendant filed a Motion For Enlargement of Time to Furnish Expert Report of Paul F. White (Docket No. 151), which the Court granted nunc pro tunc by Order (Docket No. 162), entered March 25, 2009. The order allowed said Defendant until March 2, 2009, to file the report; the record demonstrates that said Defendant filed a notice of service of expert report on March 5, 2009. In his attempt to demonstrate prejudice, Plaintiff asserts, “Defendant filed its expert report four (4) days after the time for expert depositions has expired.” Motion at 1. However, in the sentence immediately preceding this claim, Plaintiff acknowledges that the Court “set the deadline for expert depositions to be completed by May 1, 2009.” Id. Obviously, March 5, 2009, did not occur (4) days past May 1, 2009. Even in the absence of such a ludicrous statement, the Court finds that the additional three (3) days does not prejudice Plaintiff in any way. Consequently, the Court will deny the motion to strike. As a result of filing his motion to strike, Plaintiff felt compelled to file a motion to stay rebuttal deadline. Motions to stay are committed to the sound discretion of the Court. See, e.g., Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d Cir. 1983). Being advised in the premises and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that a stay of rebuttal deadline is not warranted. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: Case: 1:03-cv-00163-DWA-GWC Document #: 179 Filed: 05/22/09 Page 2 of 3 Thomas v. Centennial Communications Corp. 2003-CV-0163 Order 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Expert Report of Paul F. White and to Preclude Him From Testifying (Docket No. 160) is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Rebuttal Deadline (Docket No. 161) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: May 22, 2009 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:03-cv-00163-DWA-GWC Document #: 179 Filed: 05/22/09 Page 3 of 3