Figueroa et al v. Bonneville Contracting and Technology Group, Inc. et al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN HAROLD FIGUEROA; JOSE FIGUEROA; Plaintiff, v. BONNEVILE CONTRACTING AND TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.; BONNEVILLE GROUP VIRGIN ISLANDS CORPORATION; VIRGIN ISLANDS TELEPHONE CORP., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Criminal No. 2014-78 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: Andrew R. Duffy Jeffrey P. Goodman Robert J. Mongeluzzi Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C. Philadelphia, PA Ryan W. Greene St. Thomas, USVI Michael A. Budner XXX For the Plaintiffs, Andrew C. Simpson Emily A. Shoup Law Offices of Andrew Simpson Christiansted, USVI For Bonneville Contracting and Technology Group, Inc.; and Bonneville Group Virgin Islands Corporation Ryan C. Meade Quintairo, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. Miami, FL Douglas L. Capdeville Melissa Pauline Ortiz Law Office of Douglas L. Capdeville Christiansted, USVI For Virgin Islands Telephone Corp., Case: 3:14-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 280 Filed: 08/02/16 Page 1 of 3 Figueroa et al. v. Bonneville Contracting et al. Civ. No. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_14-cv-00078/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_14-cv-00078-3.pdf
SHA-256 9cd4529de782d4c0fcdae7640157163c757bb42cdf2940ecf1ca268b93c776d6
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-9cd4529de782
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN HAROLD FIGUEROA; JOSE FIGUEROA; Plaintiff, v. BONNEVILE CONTRACTING AND TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.; BONNEVILLE GROUP VIRGIN ISLANDS CORPORATION; VIRGIN ISLANDS TELEPHONE CORP., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Criminal No. 2014-78 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: Andrew R. Duffy Jeffrey P. Goodman Robert J. Mongeluzzi Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C. Philadelphia, PA Ryan W. Greene St. Thomas, USVI Michael A. Budner XXX For the Plaintiffs, Andrew C. Simpson Emily A. Shoup Law Offices of Andrew Simpson Christiansted, USVI For Bonneville Contracting and Technology Group, Inc.; and Bonneville Group Virgin Islands Corporation Ryan C. Meade Quintairo, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. Miami, FL Douglas L. Capdeville Melissa Pauline Ortiz Law Office of Douglas L. Capdeville Christiansted, USVI For Virgin Islands Telephone Corp., Case: 3:14-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 280 Filed: 08/02/16 Page 1 of 3 Figueroa et al. v. Bonneville Contracting et al. Civ. No. 14-78 ORDER1 Before the Court is the Objection of Bonneville Contracting and Technology Group, Inc.; and Bonneville Group Virgin Islands Corporation (collectively the “Bonneville Defendants”) to a July 8, 2016, order (the “disclosure order”) of the Magistrate ordering the disclosure of surveillance footage taken by the Bonneville Defendants of Harold Figueroa. In a July 20, 2016, order, the Court stayed the disclosure order pending resolution of the Objection. Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 72.1(a)(1) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may seek review of a magistrate judge's nondispositive order by filing objections to the order with this Court within ten days after being served with a copy of the order. Harrison v. Bornn, Bornn & Handy, 200 F.R.D. 509, 513 (D.V.I.2001). In reviewing a magistrate judge's order, a district court will modify or vacate any portion of the magistrate judge's order that is found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Anthony ex rel. Lewis v. Abbott, 289 F. Supp. 2d 667, 671 (D.V.I. 2003). A magistrate judge's order will be affirmed unless the Court is 1 The Court will issue a memorandum opinion outlining its reasons at a later date. Case: 3:14-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 280 Filed: 08/02/16 Page 2 of 3 Figueroa et al. v. Bonneville Contracting et al. Civ. No. 14-78 left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Nicholas v. Wyndham Intern., Inc., 218 F.R.D. 122, 123 (D.V.I. 2003)(citing Harrison, 200 F .R.D. at 513.). The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that the July 20, 2016, order shall be VACATED at 12:00 PM on August 3, 2016, unless, no later than 12:00 PM on August 3, 2016, the Bonneville Defendants notify the Court, through an ECF filing, that they do not intend to use the surveillance footage in Court. S\ CURTIS V. GÓMEZ District Judge Case: 3:14-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 280 Filed: 08/02/16 Page 3 of 3