Santiago, Francisco v. Welsh, Winifred
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 FRANCISCO SANTIAGO, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2005-CV-0078 v. 5 5 WINIFRED WELSH and SLB INC. 5 d/b/a WIN WELSH LANDSCAPING, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. H.A. Curt Otto, Esq. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Docket No. 57). Defendants filed an opposition to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto. Plaintiff argues that Defendants are required to file a joint stipulation pursuant to LRCi 37.2 and not a “one sided motion to compel.” Plaintiff further argues that counsel for the parties did not meet and confer as required by LRCi 37.1 prior to the filing of Defendants’ Motion For Order Compelling Discovery Responses (Docket No. 56). Having reviewed the said motions and the record in this matter, the Court agrees with Plaintiff and finds that Defendants’ said motion to compel is procedurally defective. …
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_05-cv-00078/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_05-cv-00078-0.pdf
SHA-256 a99233e68ad5cfb7c2b06d2e9e33711741280e7640e6b8b9541df36c25708368
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-a99233e68ad5
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 FRANCISCO SANTIAGO, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2005-CV-0078 v. 5 5 WINIFRED WELSH and SLB INC. 5 d/b/a WIN WELSH LANDSCAPING, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. H.A. Curt Otto, Esq. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Docket No. 57). Defendants filed an opposition to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto. Plaintiff argues that Defendants are required to file a joint stipulation pursuant to LRCi 37.2 and not a “one sided motion to compel.” Plaintiff further argues that counsel for the parties did not meet and confer as required by LRCi 37.1 prior to the filing of Defendants’ Motion For Order Compelling Discovery Responses (Docket No. 56). Having reviewed the said motions and the record in this matter, the Court agrees with Plaintiff and finds that Defendants’ said motion to compel is procedurally defective. Case: 1:05-cv-00078-RLF-GWC Document #: 71 Filed: 02/27/08 Page 1 of 2 Santiago v. Welsh. 2005-CV-0078 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Docket No. 57) is GRANTED. 2. Defendants’ Motion For Order Compelling Discovery Responses (Docket No. 56) is STRICKEN. ENTER: Dated: February 27, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:05-cv-00078-RLF-GWC Document #: 71 Filed: 02/27/08 Page 2 of 2