Fitz et al v. Islands Mechanical Contractor, Inc.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 HUMPHRIES FITZ and PIUS JAY HUBERT, 5 5 Plaintiffs, 5 1:08-cv-60 v. 5 5 ISLANDS MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, 5 INC., 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Rachelle M. Shocklee, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Rule 26 Disclosures (Docket No. 22). Defendant filed an opposition in response to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that the said motion should be granted. Despite the fact that the rule requires that parties disclose only the “subjects of [discoverable] information,” Defendant’s disclosure is inadequate because it does not allow Plaintiff to determine the substance of the named potential witnesses’ knowledge. Defendant claims that the named individuals have or may have “information relative to Case: 1:08-cv-00060-WAL-GWC Document #: 26 Filed: 12/07/10 Page 1 of 2 Fitz 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_08-cv-00060/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_08-cv-00060-1.pdf
SHA-256 683352b69402492525b6332f551f1776a93268ea078700754c4c6da26f535e45
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-683352b69402
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 HUMPHRIES FITZ and PIUS JAY HUBERT, 5 5 Plaintiffs, 5 1:08-cv-60 v. 5 5 ISLANDS MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, 5 INC., 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Rachelle M. Shocklee, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Rule 26 Disclosures (Docket No. 22). Defendant filed an opposition in response to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that the said motion should be granted. Despite the fact that the rule requires that parties disclose only the “subjects of [discoverable] information,” Defendant’s disclosure is inadequate because it does not allow Plaintiff to determine the substance of the named potential witnesses’ knowledge. Defendant claims that the named individuals have or may have “information relative to Case: 1:08-cv-00060-WAL-GWC Document #: 26 Filed: 12/07/10 Page 1 of 2 Fitz v. Islands Mechanical Contractor, Inc. 1:08-cv-60 Order Defendant’s defenses.” Opp’n, Exhibit A. However, Defendant lists seven (7) affirmative defenses, most of which are legal defenses that contain no factual allegations. Consequently, the Court finds Defendant’s disclosures unduly vague and insufficient under the Rule. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Rule 26 Disclosures (Docket No. 22) is GRANTED. 2. Defendant shall supplement its Rule 26 Disclosures by more fully describing the nature and or/substance of the information possessed by the named, potential witnesses and serve such supplement upon counsel for Plaintiff on or before December 17, 2010. ENTER: Dated: December 7, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:08-cv-00060-WAL-GWC Document #: 26 Filed: 12/07/10 Page 2 of 2