Brown,Jermaine v. Charlie's/ Diamond Ready Mix
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 JERMAINE BROWN AND KENYA 5 HENRY, 5 Plaintiff, 5 v. 5 2006-CV-0167 5 CHARLIE’S/DIAMOND READY MIX, 5 INC., 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Nathania M. Bates, Esq. Emile A. Henderson, III, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant For Failure to Comply with the Court Order Dated July 21, 2008 (Docket No. 28). Defendant filed a response to said motion. This order is issued without necessity of reply. Counsel for Defendant maintains that, due to problems with his office’s internet service provider, he did not receive notice of entry of the Court’s July 21, 2008, Order. Counsel asserts that Defendant is making efforts to comply now that it is aware of the said order and requests an additional twenty (20) days in which to file the discovery responses. Case: 1:06-cv-00167-RLF-GWC Document #: 33 Filed: 08/08/08 Page 1 of 2 Brown v. Charlie’s/Diamond Ready Mix, Inc. …
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-00167/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_06-cv-00167-1.pdf
SHA-256 be0e9d928aa9d1017c550915aae742d33c5a5912e4a26908522e2c5f4d7b4bc0
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-be0e9d928aa9
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 JERMAINE BROWN AND KENYA 5 HENRY, 5 Plaintiff, 5 v. 5 2006-CV-0167 5 CHARLIE’S/DIAMOND READY MIX, 5 INC., 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Nathania M. Bates, Esq. Emile A. Henderson, III, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant For Failure to Comply with the Court Order Dated July 21, 2008 (Docket No. 28). Defendant filed a response to said motion. This order is issued without necessity of reply. Counsel for Defendant maintains that, due to problems with his office’s internet service provider, he did not receive notice of entry of the Court’s July 21, 2008, Order. Counsel asserts that Defendant is making efforts to comply now that it is aware of the said order and requests an additional twenty (20) days in which to file the discovery responses. Case: 1:06-cv-00167-RLF-GWC Document #: 33 Filed: 08/08/08 Page 1 of 2 Brown v. Charlie’s/Diamond Ready Mix, Inc. 2006-CV-0167 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions The Court finds that Defendant has established good cause for not complying with the deadline set in the said order. In light of the stipulated extension of discovery deadlines and the Court’s approval thereof, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not prejudiced by the delay of the production of the discovery at issue. Consequently, the Court finds that sanctions are not warranted. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant For Failure to Comply with the Court Order Dated July 21, 2008 (Docket No. 28) is DENIED. 2. Defendant shall serve upon counsel for Plaintiff the discovery responses, as ordered by Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 27), on or before August 18, 2008. ENTER: Dated: August 8, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:06-cv-00167-RLF-GWC Document #: 33 Filed: 08/08/08 Page 2 of 2