Bethea v. Merchants Commercial Bank et al
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS nMMY BETHEA, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-51 ) MERCHANTS COMMERCIAL BANK, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) AMBROSE, U.S. Senior District Judge OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs motion to compel Defendant James Crites to supplement his discovery responses. Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. [306]. Defendant filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiffs motion at ECF No. [322]. Plaintiff also filed a reply brief at ECF No. [353]. Having carefully considered both parties' submissions, I enter the following Order: 1. Plaintiffs motion to compel with respect to Interrogatory 9 is DENIED as not relevant. 2. Plaintiffs motion as to Interrogatories 14 and 21, Demand 21, and Second Demand 1 is DENIED. While Plaintiff may seek to discover information to support his claim that MCB breached its Whistleblower Policy, I find requests such as these, which ask for information to support a hypothetical Whistleblower claim, not relevant. …
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_11-cv-00051/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_11-cv-00051-6.pdf
SHA-256 d45d1d9573e2d2dbe2fdf0696292aa7d94a6c1c247ff7090dd59e726ebac0da6
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-d45d1d9573e2
Document text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS nMMY BETHEA, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-51 ) MERCHANTS COMMERCIAL BANK, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) AMBROSE, U.S. Senior District Judge OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs motion to compel Defendant James Crites to supplement his discovery responses. Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. [306]. Defendant filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiffs motion at ECF No. [322]. Plaintiff also filed a reply brief at ECF No. [353]. Having carefully considered both parties' submissions, I enter the following Order: 1. Plaintiffs motion to compel with respect to Interrogatory 9 is DENIED as not relevant. 2. Plaintiffs motion as to Interrogatories 14 and 21, Demand 21, and Second Demand 1 is DENIED. While Plaintiff may seek to discover information to support his claim that MCB breached its Whistleblower Policy, I find requests such as these, which ask for information to support a hypothetical Whistleblower claim, not relevant. 1 Case: 3:11-cv-00051-DWA Document #: 408 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 1 of 2 3. Plaintiffs motion as to Second Demand 2 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff withdrew his motion as to this demand in his reply. It is so Ordered. Dated: October ,5/ ,2012 BY THE COURT: Donetta W. Ambrose Senior Judge, U.S. District Court 2 Case: 3:11-cv-00051-DWA Document #: 408 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 2 of 2