USVI Public Records

Document text

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 IDONA WALLACE 5 1:02-cv-107 5 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION 5 __________________________________________5 5 ERROL STANLEY, NIGEL CHARLES, 5 1:03-cv-55 MELVIN NEAL, JOSEPH SONNY, 5 WRANDA DAVIS 5 5 v. 5 5 ST. CROIX BASIC SERVICES, INC., BASIC 5 INDUSTRIES, INC., HOVENSA, L.L.C., and 5 AMERADA HESS CORPORATION 5 __________________________________________5 5 FORREST THOMAS 5 1:03-cv-163 5 v. 5 5 CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS 5 CORP., CENTENNIAL CARIBBEAN 5 HOLDING CORP., and CENTENNIAL 5 USVI OPERATIONS CORP. 5 __________________________________________5 5 MARK VITALIS, 5 1:05-cv-101 5 v. 5 5 SUN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., RICHARD 5 “DOC” LANGNER, and EXCEL GROUP, 5 INC. 5 __________________________________________5 Case: 1:05-cv-00143-TJS-GWC Document #: 253 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 1 of 6 Wallace v. Kmart Corp. 1:02-cv-107 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery 5 PATRICE CANTON 5 1:05-cv-143 5 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION 5 __________________________________________5 5 GLENFORD RAGGUETTE 5 1:06-cv-173 5 v. 5 5 PREMIER WINES AND SPIRITS, LTD. 5 __________________________________________5 5 TERRANCE ALEXIS 5 1:07-cv-91 5 v. 5 5 HOVENSA, L.L.C., and HESS f/k/a 5 Amerada Hess Corporation 5 __________________________________________5 5 HELEN JAMES-STEELE 5 1:04-CV-123 5 v. 5 5 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 5 __________________________________________5 TO: See attached distribution list ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY RELATED TO MOTIONS TO RECUSE AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO STRIKE UNTIMELY FILINGS Case: 1:05-cv-00143-TJS-GWC Document #: 253 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 2 of 6 Wallace v. Kmart Corp. 1:02-cv-107 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery Related to Motions to Recuse and Request For Expedited Consideration (1:02-cv- 107, Docket No. 290). Defendants Sun Constructors, Inc., Richard “Doc” Langner, and Excel Group, Inc., and Defendants Centennial Communications Corp., Centennial Caribbean Holding Corp., and Centennial USVI Operations Corp. filed oppositions to said motion. Defendant HOVENSA, LLC, moved to join Defendants Centennial Communications Corp., Centennial Caribbean Holding Corp., and Centennial USVI Operations Corp.’s opposition (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 306) and Defendant Ford Motor Company moved to join both oppositions (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 308). Plaintiffs filed a reply to Defendants Sun Constructors, Inc., Richard “Doc” Langner, and Excel Group, Inc.’s opposition and a Motion to Strike Untimely Filings (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 310) in response to Defendants Centennial Communications Corp., Centennial Caribbean Holding Corp., and Centennial USVI Operations Corp.’s opposition. Having reviewed all the written submissions and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that the discovery sought by Plaintiffs is not warranted. Despite Plaintiffs’ attempt to distinguish the current situation presented before the Court from that presented to this Court in United States v. Roebuck, 271 F. Supp. 2d 712 (D.V.I. 2003), with regard to deposing Judge Savage, the Court finds Roebuck to be directly on point. The questions the Case: 1:05-cv-00143-TJS-GWC Document #: 253 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 3 of 6 Wallace v. Kmart Corp. 1:02-cv-107 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery defendant proposed for Judge Moore in Roebuck are virtually indistinguishable from the “factual” inquiry to which Plaintiffs seek to subject Judge Savage in the matters at bar. As the Roebuck court cautioned, “Simply putting the word ‘factually’ before a request for information does not make that information discoverable under the case law.” Id. at 721. Like the Roebuck court found with respect to Judge Moore, the Court, here, finds that Judge Savage cannot be compelled to answer the questions proposed by [Plaintiffs] as the information sought falls directly within the prohibition established by Morgan and its progeny . . . . The law is clear that a judge is not required to explain any of his decisions nor to divulge reasons which may have motivated his actions or opinion.” Edwards, 39 F. Supp. 2d at 706. Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Consequently, the Court will deny 1 Plaintiffs’ request to depose Judge Savage. In addition, the Court finds that the other proposed depositions are unnecessary, cumulative, and duplicative in view of the statements, affidavits, and other documents filed in support of Plaintiffs’ motions to recuse. 1. Plaintiffs heavily rely upon Ciarlone v. City of Reading, 263 F.R.D. 198 (E.D. Pa. 2009). However, the facts of Ciarlone are distinguishable from the matters at bar, where the judge whose deposition was sought in Ciarlone was not embroiled in a disqualification issue. Even if Ciarlone and the Frankenthal test (as articulated in United States v. Roth, 332 F. Supp. 2d 565, 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)) that the Ciarlone court adopted were applicable here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail the second prong of the test. Because a judge is not required to “divulge reasons which may have motivated his actions or opinion,” United States v. Edwards, 39 F. Supp. 2d 692, 706 (M.D. La. 1999) (cited in Roebuck, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 721), the “factual knowledge” Plaintiffs claim Judge Savage possesses in not “highly pertinent to the jury’s task.” Ciarlone, 263 F.R.D. at 205. Case: 1:05-cv-00143-TJS-GWC Document #: 253 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 4 of 6 Wallace v. Kmart Corp. 1:02-cv-107 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery Related to Motions to Recuse and Request For Expedited Consideration (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 290) is DENIED. 2. Defendant HOVENSA, LLC’s Joinder in Centennial’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Conduct Discovery Related to the Recusal Motion (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 306) is GRANTED. 3. Defendant Ford Motor Company’s joinder in Sun Constructors, Inc’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conduct Discovery Related to the Recusal Motion and Centennial’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Conduct Discovery Related to the Recusal Motion (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 308) is GRANTED. 4. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Untimely Filings (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 310) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: August 25, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:05-cv-00143-TJS-GWC Document #: 253 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 5 of 6 Wallace v. Kmart Corp. 1:02-cv-107 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery ECF: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Eugenio W.A. Geigel-Simounet, Esq. George H. Logan, Esq. Linda J. Blair, Esq. Simone R.D. Francis, Esq. David J. Cattie, Esq. Anna H. Paiewonsky, Esq. Stephanie L. Adler, Esq. Daryl C. Barnes, Esq. Case: 1:05-cv-00143-TJS-GWC Document #: 253 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 6 of 6