Plante, Kennox Lee v. Orgill Incorporated
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 KENNOX “LEE” PLANTE, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2005-CV-0126 v. 5 5 ORGILL INCORPORATED, 5 5 Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff 5 5 v. 5 YUN FU ENTERPRISES CO. 5 5 Third-Party Defendant. 5 ________________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Simone R.D. Francis, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT FOR A MORE COMPLETE RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant For a More Complete Response to Demand For Production No. 11 (Docket No. 47). Defendant contends that the documents identified in Plaintiff’s Demand For Production No. 11 are irrelevant. Having reviewed the said demand and Defendant’s response and contentions, the Court agrees. Consequently, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request. Case: 1:05-cv-00126-RLF-GWC Document #: 55 Filed: 09/12/07 Page 1 of 2 Plante v. Orgill 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_05-cv-00126/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_05-cv-00126-0.pdf
SHA-256 c2cba2918bd278f50a706774350c48a19273a7a910fd911caf52b62397c33f33
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-c2cba2918bd2
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 KENNOX “LEE” PLANTE, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2005-CV-0126 v. 5 5 ORGILL INCORPORATED, 5 5 Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff 5 5 v. 5 YUN FU ENTERPRISES CO. 5 5 Third-Party Defendant. 5 ________________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Simone R.D. Francis, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT FOR A MORE COMPLETE RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant For a More Complete Response to Demand For Production No. 11 (Docket No. 47). Defendant contends that the documents identified in Plaintiff’s Demand For Production No. 11 are irrelevant. Having reviewed the said demand and Defendant’s response and contentions, the Court agrees. Consequently, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request. Case: 1:05-cv-00126-RLF-GWC Document #: 55 Filed: 09/12/07 Page 1 of 2 Plante v. Orgill Inc. 2005-CV-0126 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel In the text of the joint stipulation Plaintiff also requests further supplementation of Defendant’s First Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures to provide the business address for Brian Dempsey. Defendant states that it already has provided the business address for Brian Dempsey. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request is moot. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Competl Defendant For a More Complete Response to Demand For Production No. 11 (Docket No. 47) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: September 12, 2007 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:05-cv-00126-RLF-GWC Document #: 55 Filed: 09/12/07 Page 2 of 2