DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 JUAN MENDEZ, JUAN MORALES, 5 RENE VARGAS, FRANK ORTIZ, 5 REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ, JAIME, 5 GARCIA and PEDRO CARPIO, 5 5 Plaintiffs, 5 2002-CV-0169 v. 5 5 HOVENSA, LLC, 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Onik’a Gilliam, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WILLIAM GEORGE TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel William George to Answer Deposition Questions (Docket No. 218). Defendant filed an opposition, to which Plaintiffs filed a reply. Plaintiffs have submitted a motion to compel discovery. According to Local Rule 37.2(d), “the Court will not consider any discovery motion in the absence of a joint stipulation or a declaration from counsel for the moving party establishing that opposing counsel” thwarted the filing of a joint stipulation. LRCi 37.2(d). Plaintiffs’ motion is not Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS Document #: 242 Filed: 07/18/07 Page 1 of 3 Mendez 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_02-cv-00169/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_02-cv-00169-0.pdf
SHA-256 d67dab5e240321aa62739f5bd00a1f2407b850bdb4b201b8f5b0c5e4376aa102
Re-using this document
A work of the United States Government. Not subject to copyright in the United States under 17 U.S.C. § 105, and therefore in the public domain from the moment it was created.
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-d67dab5e2403
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 JUAN MENDEZ, JUAN MORALES, 5 RENE VARGAS, FRANK ORTIZ, 5 REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ, JAIME, 5 GARCIA and PEDRO CARPIO, 5 5 Plaintiffs, 5 2002-CV-0169 v. 5 5 HOVENSA, LLC, 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Onik’a Gilliam, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WILLIAM GEORGE TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel William George to Answer Deposition Questions (Docket No. 218). Defendant filed an opposition, to which Plaintiffs filed a reply. Plaintiffs have submitted a motion to compel discovery. According to Local Rule 37.2(d), “the Court will not consider any discovery motion in the absence of a joint stipulation or a declaration from counsel for the moving party establishing that opposing counsel” thwarted the filing of a joint stipulation. LRCi 37.2(d). Plaintiffs’ motion is not Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS Document #: 242 Filed: 07/18/07 Page 1 of 3 Mendez v. HOVENSA, LLC 2002-CV-0169 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel William George to Answer Deposition Questions accompanied by a joint stipulation. As Plaintiffs are the moving party, Plaintiffs’ motion may be accompanied, in lieu of a joint stipulation, by a declaration from Plaintiffs’ counsel that opposing counsel thwarted the filing of a joint stipulation. Although Plaintiffs’ discovery motion has been submitted without either a joint stipulation or a declaration from counsel establishing that opposing counsel thwarted the filing of a joint stipulation, the Court will consider the motion in light of the approaching trial date. Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s expert, William George, to appear in St. Croix and respond to a supposedly unanswered deposition question. In their motion, Plaintiffs challenge Defense counsel’s direction to Defendant’s expert not to answer the following question: “Did you provide any questions to Attorney Warren or any of his associates in examining Dr. Bernard yesterday?” Deposition of William J. George, Ph.D. at p. 51. Despite defense counsel’s direction not to answer, Plaintiffs’ counsel renewed the question: “Did you provide Attorney Warren with a list of questions in preparation for his examination of Dr. Bernard?” Id. at p. 52. Defendant’s expert responded: “I don’t remember who he examined, but I know I spoke with him on the phone. I don’t recall what the questions were.” Id. Thus, Defendant’s expert answered Plaintiffs’ counsel’s question, despite defense counsel’s direction not to answer. Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS Document #: 242 Filed: 07/18/07 Page 2 of 3 Mendez v. HOVENSA, LLC 2002-CV-0169 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel William George to Answer Deposition Questions Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel William George to Answer Deposition Questions (Docket No. 218) is DENIED AS MOOT. ENTER: Dated: July 18, 2007 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS Document #: 242 Filed: 07/18/07 Page 3 of 3