Piche, Edward v. Captain Nautica Inc. A Virgin Islands Coporation
FOR PUBLICATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN EDWARD PICHÉ, Plaintiff, v. STOCKDALE HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a CAPTAIN NAUTICA (and a/k/a CAPTAIN NAUTICA, INC.), PARKER F. STOCKDALE, and SUSAN M. STOCKDALE, Defendants. ___________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2006-79 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: John E. Stout, Esq. and Julie German Evert, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the plaintiff, Ruth Miller, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the defendants. ORDER GÓMEZ, C.J. Before the Court is the motion of the defendants, Stockdale Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Captain Nautica, Parker F. Stockdale, and Susan Stockdale to exclude any expert witnesses of the plaintiff, Edward Piché (“Piché”), under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Case: 3:06-cv-00079-CVG Document #: 58 Filed: 03/06/09 Page 1 of 4 Piché v. Stockdale Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Captain Nautica, et al. Civil No. 2006-79 Order as a sanction for alleged discovery violations. The defendants have also filed a motion to deem conceded their Rule 37 motion. …
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_06-cv-00079/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_06-cv-00079-0.pdf
SHA-256 ba5dddf7c2284298e756973958746f81628ffa7e69a2e34d04cf10b1d9b02a2a
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-ba5dddf7c228
Document text
FOR PUBLICATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN EDWARD PICHÉ, Plaintiff, v. STOCKDALE HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a CAPTAIN NAUTICA (and a/k/a CAPTAIN NAUTICA, INC.), PARKER F. STOCKDALE, and SUSAN M. STOCKDALE, Defendants. ___________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2006-79 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: John E. Stout, Esq. and Julie German Evert, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the plaintiff, Ruth Miller, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the defendants. ORDER GÓMEZ, C.J. Before the Court is the motion of the defendants, Stockdale Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Captain Nautica, Parker F. Stockdale, and Susan Stockdale to exclude any expert witnesses of the plaintiff, Edward Piché (“Piché”), under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Case: 3:06-cv-00079-CVG Document #: 58 Filed: 03/06/09 Page 1 of 4 Piché v. Stockdale Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Captain Nautica, et al. Civil No. 2006-79 Order as a sanction for alleged discovery violations. The defendants have also filed a motion to deem conceded their Rule 37 motion. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37.1 requires that, [p]rior to filing any motion relating to discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26-37, other than a motion relating to depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, counsel for the parties shall confer in a good faith effort to eliminate the necessity for the motion or to eliminate as many of the disputes as possible. . . . LRCi 37.1. Additionally, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37.2 provides: (a) STIPULATION. 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. The stipulation shall include the moving party’s letter requesting a pre-filing conference of counsel and shall be filed and served with the motion. . . . (c) FAILURE TO FILE STIPULATION. 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(a),(c). The instant motion, however, contains no certification that Case: 3:06-cv-00079-CVG Document #: 58 Filed: 03/06/09 Page 2 of 4 Piché v. Stockdale Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Captain Nautica, et al. Civil No. 2006-79 Order the defendants have in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with Piché in an effort to obtain the requested authorizations for release of information. Nor have the parties submitted any stipulation in accordance with Local Rule 37.2, certifying their compliance with Local Rule 37.1. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to exclude Piché’s expert witnesses is DENIED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the motion to deem conceded is DENIED as moot. S\ Curtis V. Gómez Chief Judge Case: 3:06-cv-00079-CVG Document #: 58 Filed: 03/06/09 Page 3 of 4 Case: 3:06-cv-00079-CVG Document #: 58 Filed: 03/06/09 Page 4 of 4