Bergan, Cora v. Kmart Coporation
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 CORA BERGAN, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:07-cv-120 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Eugenio W.A. Geigel-Simounet, Esq. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions For Failure to Obey the Court’s Order Dated September 25, 2009 (Docket No. 63). The time for filing a response has expired. The record contains a Notice of Supplementation of Production of Documents (Docket No. 50), filed December 23, 2009, by Defendant, wherein Defendant states that it produced the “call-in” report. However, the notice is silent regarding the additional documents that were required to have been produced by the Court’s Order (Docket No. 42), entered September 25, 2009. Case: 1:07-cv-00120-AET-GWC Document #: 64 Filed: 03/05/10 Page 1 of 2 Bergan v. Kmart Corp. 1:07-cv-120 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions WHEREFORE, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. …
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-00120/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_07-cv-00120-2.pdf
SHA-256 9c46d1f9d39216129c06dc5db97f012215728674cd31b18321c574accf62f83d
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-9c46d1f9d392
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 CORA BERGAN, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:07-cv-120 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Eugenio W.A. Geigel-Simounet, Esq. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions For Failure to Obey the Court’s Order Dated September 25, 2009 (Docket No. 63). The time for filing a response has expired. The record contains a Notice of Supplementation of Production of Documents (Docket No. 50), filed December 23, 2009, by Defendant, wherein Defendant states that it produced the “call-in” report. However, the notice is silent regarding the additional documents that were required to have been produced by the Court’s Order (Docket No. 42), entered September 25, 2009. Case: 1:07-cv-00120-AET-GWC Document #: 64 Filed: 03/05/10 Page 1 of 2 Bergan v. Kmart Corp. 1:07-cv-120 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions WHEREFORE, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions For Failure to Obey the Court’s Order Dated September 25, 2009 (Docket No. 63) is GRANTED. 2. Defendant shall supplement, on or before March 19, 2010, its responses to Plaintiff’s Demand For Production of Documents as directed in said order. 3. Defendant shall pay to counsel for Plaintiff, on or before March 19, 2010, the sum of $300.00, as a sanction for its failure to comply with the said order and necessitating Plaintiff’s motion. ENTER: Dated: March 5, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:07-cv-00120-AET-GWC Document #: 64 Filed: 03/05/10 Page 2 of 2