Cameron, Glenda K. et al v. Rohn, Lee J et al
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX K. GLENDA CAMERON, ESQ., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL NO. 1:10-00126 v. ) ) ) LEE J. ROHN, ESQ., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________________ ) ORDER Before the Court is the defendants’ motion seeking sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (ECF 115) based on plaintiffs’ failure to supplement Rule 26 disclosures1. Local Rules of Civil Procedure 37.1 and 37.2 set forth procedures that are mandatory prior to the filing of a discovery-related motion. Defendants do not even hint that they have complied with any of the provisions of the Rules (apart from the curious claim that raising an issue at a status conference somehow substitutes for the “meet and confer” requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1)) , nor do they state why compliance may have been unnecessary. Furthermore, Local Rule 37.3 provides that sanctions may be imposed for the failure to follow the specified procedures. …
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_10-cv-00126/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_10-cv-00126-0.pdf
SHA-256 52cd893f94d73b61b77533ff94a59a6c3a9ef96c6f5eadd5a6c7f7e0592a1657
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-52cd893f94d7
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX K. GLENDA CAMERON, ESQ., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL NO. 1:10-00126 v. ) ) ) LEE J. ROHN, ESQ., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________________ ) ORDER Before the Court is the defendants’ motion seeking sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (ECF 115) based on plaintiffs’ failure to supplement Rule 26 disclosures1. Local Rules of Civil Procedure 37.1 and 37.2 set forth procedures that are mandatory prior to the filing of a discovery-related motion. Defendants do not even hint that they have complied with any of the provisions of the Rules (apart from the curious claim that raising an issue at a status conference somehow substitutes for the “meet and confer” requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1)) , nor do they state why compliance may have been unnecessary. Furthermore, Local Rule 37.3 provides that sanctions may be imposed for the failure to follow the specified procedures. 1 The Court notes that plaintiffs supplemented the disclosures shortly after the motion was filed. Defendants, in their reply, complain that the supplementation is still deficient. For the same reasons as set forth above, that dispute is not ripe for motion practice. Case: 1:10-cv-00126-AET-RM Document #: 142 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 1 of 2 Cameron v. Rohn, et al. Civil No. 1:10-00126 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for sanctions is DENIED. Furthermore, the parties are cautioned that any future failure to comply with the letter and spirit of the Federal and Local Rules regarding sanctions motions may result in the imposition of sanctions on the non-compliant party. S\_____________________________ RUTH MILLER United States Magistrate Judge Case: 1:10-cv-00126-AET-RM Document #: 142 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 2 of 2