Nathaniel, Sherline Williams v. American Airlines
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 SHERLINE WILLIAMS NATHANIEL, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2007-CV-0033 v. 5 5 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Raegan M. King, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Rule 26 Disclosures (Docket No. 16). Defendant filed an opposition to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto. Having reviewed the filings of the parties and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that Defendant has complied with its Rule 26 obligations and will deny the motion to compel. With regard to Plaintiff’s contention that she is entitled to the home addresses and telephone numbers of certain employees of Defendant, the Court agrees with Defendant Case: 1:07-cv-00033-RLF-GWC Document #: 25 Filed: 04/16/08 Page 1 of 2 Nathaniel v. American Airlines, 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_07-cv-00033/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_07-cv-00033-0.pdf
SHA-256 f0c2acf1fa49a51f672f179dd852fa3c95b1ee9d206a48b0a1ed6817edb00bab
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-f0c2acf1fa49
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 SHERLINE WILLIAMS NATHANIEL, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2007-CV-0033 v. 5 5 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Raegan M. King, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Rule 26 Disclosures (Docket No. 16). Defendant filed an opposition to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto. Having reviewed the filings of the parties and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that Defendant has complied with its Rule 26 obligations and will deny the motion to compel. With regard to Plaintiff’s contention that she is entitled to the home addresses and telephone numbers of certain employees of Defendant, the Court agrees with Defendant Case: 1:07-cv-00033-RLF-GWC Document #: 25 Filed: 04/16/08 Page 1 of 2 Nathaniel v. American Airlines, Inc. 2007-CV-0033 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel that such information of managerial or supervisory employees are not required to be disclosed and that Defendant’s disclosures are adequate. Plaintiff’s request for more details concerning the substance of the knowledge of individuals with knowledge of the underlying incident who are not employees of Defendant also extends beyond what is required by the rules. As Defendant notes, its description of the general scope of the individual’s knowledge is sufficient. The Court accepts Defendant’s explanation for the redaction of the Flight History and Event Detail Report. The Court finds that further disclosure is not required. Finally, Defendant asserts that it has not withheld any documents based upon any claimed privileges at this juncture. Consequently, Plaintiff’s demand for a privilege log is premature. Based upon the foregoing, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Rule 26 Disclosures (Docket No. 16) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: April 16, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:07-cv-00033-RLF-GWC Document #: 25 Filed: 04/16/08 Page 2 of 2