Robles,Karim v. Amerada Hess Corporation
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 KARIM ROBLES, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2006-CV-0133 v. 5 5 HESS CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ________________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. C. Beth Moss, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Complete Discovery Responses (Docket No. 24). Defendant filed a response to said motion. This order is issued without necessity of a reply. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to respond to his discovery requests despite an extension granted by Plaintiff and a promise by Defendant to have such responses completed by August 12, 2008. Defendant states that it now has served its responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and enumerates its reasons for the delay. The Court notes that the parties failed to submit a joint stipulation pursuant LRCi 37.2(a). As the Court has ruled in previous matters discovery motions that fail to comply Case: 1:06-cv-00133-RLF-GWC Document #: 28 Filed: 10/08/08 Page 1 of 2 Robles v. …
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_06-cv-00133/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_06-cv-00133-0.pdf
SHA-256 bca574259eee592668af00b328d4a7eacc18803bb5aec29ba518a1cb1783dab4
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-bca574259eee
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 KARIM ROBLES, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2006-CV-0133 v. 5 5 HESS CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ________________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. C. Beth Moss, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Complete Discovery Responses (Docket No. 24). Defendant filed a response to said motion. This order is issued without necessity of a reply. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to respond to his discovery requests despite an extension granted by Plaintiff and a promise by Defendant to have such responses completed by August 12, 2008. Defendant states that it now has served its responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and enumerates its reasons for the delay. The Court notes that the parties failed to submit a joint stipulation pursuant LRCi 37.2(a). As the Court has ruled in previous matters discovery motions that fail to comply Case: 1:06-cv-00133-RLF-GWC Document #: 28 Filed: 10/08/08 Page 1 of 2 Robles v. Hess Corporation 2006-CV-0133 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel with the requirements of LRCi 37.2(a) will not be considered pursuant to LRCi 37.2(c). However, because the motion currently before the Court is moot, the Court merely will deny the motion. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Complete Discovery Responses (Docket No. 24) is DENIED AS MOOT. ENTER: Dated: October 8, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:06-cv-00133-RLF-GWC Document #: 28 Filed: 10/08/08 Page 2 of 2