Greiner v. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS et al
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN DAVID GREINER, ) ) CIVIL NO. 2009-133 Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, ) THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BUREAU ) OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to re-depose and compel responses to certain questions asked in deposition of witness Naomi Maynard Julien. In filing the motion, plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37.2. Plaintiff did not confer with defendant in an effort to resolve the disputed issues without a motion, nor did the motion contain the required certification. For this reason alone, plaintiff’s motion should be denied. In addition, however, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate why he should be entitled to responses to specific questions asked at the deposition. Rather, plaintiff sets out large passages of questions, some of which were objected to and some of which were not, some of which answered and some of which were not. …
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_09-cv-00133/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_09-cv-00133-0.pdf
SHA-256 d0858ba9d21289b9f3b937600c01221ca304cd04c4b457a794e17d8e2e2a9471
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-d0858ba9d212
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN DAVID GREINER, ) ) CIVIL NO. 2009-133 Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, ) THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BUREAU ) OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to re-depose and compel responses to certain questions asked in deposition of witness Naomi Maynard Julien. In filing the motion, plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37.2. Plaintiff did not confer with defendant in an effort to resolve the disputed issues without a motion, nor did the motion contain the required certification. For this reason alone, plaintiff’s motion should be denied. In addition, however, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate why he should be entitled to responses to specific questions asked at the deposition. Rather, plaintiff sets out large passages of questions, some of which were objected to and some of which were not, some of which answered and some of which were not. It is practically impossible to tell which areas are those of real concern to plaintiff. Moreover, in those areas in which the witness was apparently instructed not to respond, it is difficult at best to discern how the responses sought would produce admissible evidence or lead to the discovery of such evidence. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice. DATED: May 9, 2011 _S/__________________________ RUTH MILLER United States Magistrate Judge Case: 3:09-cv-00133-CVG-RM Document #: 97 Filed: 05/09/11 Page 1 of 1