Smith, Tia v. Sgs North America, Inc.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 TIA SMITH, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2007-CV-0014 v. 5 5 SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., and 5 MATTHEW REILLY, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Sharmane Davis-Brathwaite, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant SGS [to] Supplement Its Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 57). Said Defendant filed an opposition to said motion. The time for filing a reply has expired. Plaintiff claims that a meet and confer was held on July 2, 2008, and that said Defendant agreed to supplement by July 18, 2008, but failed to do so. Said Defendant asserts that it has supplemented certain responses and that the motion is without merit with regard to other discovery identified by Plaintiff. The Court notes that the parties failed to submit a joint stipulation pursuant LRCi 37.2(a). …
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_07-cv-00014/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_07-cv-00014-1.pdf
SHA-256 9596e039b8d523d0db79fdcc47569e4072116a5617e84833e134bf7583761d1a
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-9596e039b8d5
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 TIA SMITH, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2007-CV-0014 v. 5 5 SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., and 5 MATTHEW REILLY, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Sharmane Davis-Brathwaite, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant SGS [to] Supplement Its Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 57). Said Defendant filed an opposition to said motion. The time for filing a reply has expired. Plaintiff claims that a meet and confer was held on July 2, 2008, and that said Defendant agreed to supplement by July 18, 2008, but failed to do so. Said Defendant asserts that it has supplemented certain responses and that the motion is without merit with regard to other discovery identified by Plaintiff. The Court notes that the parties failed to submit a joint stipulation pursuant LRCi 37.2(a). However, because the matter has been briefed, in the interest of judicial economy, Case: 1:07-cv-00014-JEJ-GWC Document #: 70 Filed: 10/10/08 Page 1 of 3 Smith v. SGS North America, Inc. 2007-CV-014 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Court will rule upon the papers which could be considered filed consistent with LRCi 37.2(b). As the Court has stated in previous matters, however, all future discovery motions that fail to comply with the requirements of LRCi 37.2(a) will not be considered pursuant to LRCi 37.2(c). With regard to the specific discovery requests at issue, the Court makes the following findings and conclusions: Interrogatory No. 3: Said Defendant represents that it already has supplemented its response. No further supplementation is necessary. Interrogatory No. 11: Said Defendant objected to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, not limited in time and scope, and irrelevant. The Court sustains said Defendant’s objections. No further response is necessary. Interrogatory No. 13: Said Defendant represents that it already has supplemented its response. No further supplementation is necessary. Demand For Production No. 5: Said Defendant claims that it has not withheld any responsive documents. The Court finds that said Defendant’s response is adequate. No further response is necessary. Case: 1:07-cv-00014-JEJ-GWC Document #: 70 Filed: 10/10/08 Page 2 of 3 Smith v. SGS North America, Inc. 2007-CV-014 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Demand For Production No. 6: Said Defendant claims that it has not withheld any responsive documents. The Court finds that said Defendant’s response is adequate. No further response is necessary. Demand For Production No. 11: Said Defendant objected to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, not limited in time and scope, and irrelevant. The Court sustains said Defendant’s objections. No further response is necessary. Demand For Production Nos. 15-20: Said Defendant claims that it has not withheld any responsive documents. The Court finds that said Defendant’s response is adequate. No further response is necessary. Therefore, it is now hereby ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant SGS [to] Supplement Its Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 57) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: October 10, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:07-cv-00014-JEJ-GWC Document #: 70 Filed: 10/10/08 Page 3 of 3