Roberts v. Kmart Corporation
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 ANITA ROBERTS, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:08-cv-90 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Eugenio W.A. Geigel-Simounet, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Kmart to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Demand For Production of Documents (Docket No. 26) and Motion to Compel Kmart Corporation to Respond to Discovery (Docket No. 28). Defendant filed an opposition in which it advised that Defendant had served its responses to the request for production of documents and filed notice thereof with the Court. This order is issued without necessity of any further response or reply. Being advised in the premises and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds the motions moot. Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC Document #: 32 Filed: 08/18/09 Page 1 of 2 Roberts 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_08-cv-00090/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_08-cv-00090-0.pdf
SHA-256 f6e1ea27041e96ebe7319a31b77fdd0d5850bbc015705395b263ed693b1deb89
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-f6e1ea27041e
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 ANITA ROBERTS, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:08-cv-90 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Eugenio W.A. Geigel-Simounet, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Kmart to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Demand For Production of Documents (Docket No. 26) and Motion to Compel Kmart Corporation to Respond to Discovery (Docket No. 28). Defendant filed an opposition in which it advised that Defendant had served its responses to the request for production of documents and filed notice thereof with the Court. This order is issued without necessity of any further response or reply. Being advised in the premises and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds the motions moot. Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC Document #: 32 Filed: 08/18/09 Page 1 of 2 Roberts v. Kmart Corporation 1:08-cv-90 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Kmart to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Demand For Production of Documents (Docket No. 26) is DENIED AS MOOT. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Kmart Corporation to Respond to Discovery (Docket No. 28) is DENIED AS MOOT. ENTER: Dated: August 18, 2009 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC Document #: 32 Filed: 08/18/09 Page 2 of 2