Griffin, Bridget v. Kmart Corporation
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 BRIDGET GRIFFIN, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:05-cv-189 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant, 5 5 v. 5 5 SUNSHINE SHOPPING CENTER, INC., 5 5 Third Party Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Wilfredo A. Geigel, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Kmart to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Demand For Production Fo [sic] Documents (Docket No. 96) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 98). The time for filing a response has expired. Having reviewed the said motions, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to adhere to the requirements of LRCi 37.2. Despite counsel’s “Certification Pursuant to LRCi 37.1" Case: 1:05-cv-00189-JEJ Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/09 Page 1 of 3 Griffin v. Kmart Corp. 1:05-cv-189 Order contained in each motion, neither conforms to the local rules. Parties, and particularly counsel, are expected, indeed, required, to know and adhere to all the rules of procedure. …
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-00189/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_05-cv-00189-3.pdf
SHA-256 b5b22687768a2e5c29ac6709c4ace24bdbb957de87abff3a154f97858e5edc96
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-b5b22687768a
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 BRIDGET GRIFFIN, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:05-cv-189 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant, 5 5 v. 5 5 SUNSHINE SHOPPING CENTER, INC., 5 5 Third Party Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Wilfredo A. Geigel, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Kmart to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Demand For Production Fo [sic] Documents (Docket No. 96) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 98). The time for filing a response has expired. Having reviewed the said motions, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to adhere to the requirements of LRCi 37.2. Despite counsel’s “Certification Pursuant to LRCi 37.1" Case: 1:05-cv-00189-JEJ Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/09 Page 1 of 3 Griffin v. Kmart Corp. 1:05-cv-189 Order contained in each motion, neither conforms to the local rules. Parties, and particularly counsel, are expected, indeed, required, to know and adhere to all the rules of procedure. Moreover, the correct procedure is found in LRCi 37.2, not LRCi 37.1. Plaintiff claims in both motions that a meet and confer has been held. In that instance, Rule 37.2 states, “If counsel are unable to resolve all of their differences, they shall formulate and sign a written stipulation to that effect, expressly certifying their compliance with LRCi 37.1.” LRCi 37.2(a). In this matter, Plaintiff has not filed a stipulation in conformance with LRCI 37.2(a). Rule 37.2(c) addresses this circumstance and specifically provides: The Court will not consider any discovery motion in the absence of (1) the signed stipulation and certification required by LRCi 37.2(a), or (2) a declaration from counsel for the moving party establishing that opposing counsel: (1) failed to confer in a timely manner after receipt of a letter requesting a conference under LRCi 37.1; or (2) refused to sign the stipulation and certification required by LRCi 37.2(a). LRCi 37.2(c). Thus, in the absence of a stipulation and a declaration from counsel for Plaintiff establishing the failure of opposing counsel to meet and confer after receiving a letter as Case: 1:05-cv-00189-JEJ Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/09 Page 2 of 3 Griffin v. Kmart Corp. 1:05-cv-189 Order described in LRCi 37.1 or refusal to sign the stipulation, this Court will not consider Plaintiff’s said motions and will deny the same without prejudice. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Kmart to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Demand For Production Fo [sic] Documents (Docket No. 96) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Response to Discovery (Docket No. 98) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ENTER: Dated: August 25, 2009 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:05-cv-00189-JEJ Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/09 Page 3 of 3