IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
LOREN KOKOT )
)
Plaintiff ) Case No ST 2020 CV 00153
vs )
)
ST JOHN FRONT DESK LLC d/b/a WHARFSIDE )
WATERSPORTS and MICHAEL RAMSEY and ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES
CHASE HERRO ) and PERSONAL INJURY
)
Defendants )
)
CHASE HERRO )
)
Crossclaim Plaintiff, )
V5 )
)
ST JOHN FRONT DESK LLC d/b/a WHARFSIDE )
WATERSPORTS and MICHAEL RAMSEY )
)
Crossclaim Dclendants )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintifi Loren Kokot s ( Kokot ) Motion to
Compcl Defendant Chase Hem) to Provide Complete Responses to Discovery and For Sanctions
filed on June 17 2022 ( Motion ) Also before the Court is Defendant Chase Herro s ( Herro )
Opposition to Motion filed on July 1 l 2022 ( Opposition ) Kokot filed a Reply to Opposition
on July 17 2022
BACKGROUND
Kokot alleges that, on June 15, 2019, she sustained injuries while aboard the m/v Clickbait
( Cliekbait ) when it hit a wave head on and Kokot was sent into the air and hurt upon landing
Koltot \ St John FrontDesA LLC 61 u! Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U
Case No ST 2020 CV 0015}
Memorandum Optnion Plainttft‘: Motton to Lompel (Heme)
Page 2 at 16
Kokot s brother in law had made the arrangements through Justin Banoshl, to rent two vessels
on that same June 15 Kokot brought this action against Defendants St John Front Desk, LLC
d/b/a Wharfside Watersports ( Whartside ) Michael Ramsey ( Ramsey ) and Herro tor
negligent conduct and negligent entrustment
Kokot s Complaint2 alleges that Herro was owner of the vessel, Clickbait and the party
responsible fut injuries stemming from in negligent operation; that Wharfside was in the business
of chattering motor Vessels for day excutsions and held itself out as the owner and operator of
various vessels including Cliekbait and that Ramsey was the captain of Cliekbait Defendant
Harm filed crossclaims against Wharfsidc and Ramsey tor contribution and indemnity
Kokot served Hem) the first set of interrogatories and requests for production on March 3,
2022 Thus April 2 2022 was Hem) s deadline to file responses to those discovery requests See
V I R Civ P 33(1)) and 34(1)) (imposing a thirty day deadline from the date at service to
respond) Herro did not meet this deadline and on April 12 2022, asked Kokot tor an extension
through April 29 2022 which Kokot granted Nevertheless, Hem) also did not meet the extended
deadline and, ultimately, filed his responses on May 5, 2022 3
' Though Banosh ts not a named defendant In this action Kokot alleges that he is a prtncipal 01 Defendant Wharfstde
and that Kokot provtded the quotes for the vessels Banosh is aleo referenced in several of Kukot’e request: for
discovery
7 Kokot S Complamt was filed on March 12 2020
3 Ilene s reeponsee included a statement at General Objeetions that state the tollowtng
IlERRO objects to these dtscovery requests to the extent thwt they request tnfonnanon that In not
proportional to the needs of the ease considering the importance ofthe iasuec at stake in the amen the
amount in Lontroversy the pames relattve access to relevant infonnatton the parties resource: the
importance of the diacovery tn resolvmg the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the plopoaed
discovery outweigh he likely benefit HERRO also objecte to any discovery request that seeks to requeat
information that would he subject to protection of any recognized ptmtege such as the attomey client
privilege and/or Constituttonal protections To the extent that the Plainttff does not limit the discovery
sought to a reawnable time period HERRO will prmide disLovery responses for a period of ten (10)
years prior to the act: alleged m the Complamt To the extent that Plamtiff (1er not define word: or
phrases, the definition as given by the Mtnam Webster dtcttonary will be utilized
KOKOH St John Flam Desk [LC cl (1] Cite a: 2023 VI Super 3U
Che No ST 2020 CV 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plamtlft 5 Motion to Compel (Ilene)
Page 3 of 16
Kokot immediately sent Hcrro a letter pursuant to Rule 37 1(1)) seeking supplementary
teaponses to the requested discovely (‘ Rule 37 1 letter ’) A Hem) responded to the Objections by
letter and the parties met and conferred on May 9 2022 Kokot states Hem) agreed to supplement
the insufficient respomes by May 23 2022 but he did not As such throughout the Motion 1(0th
maintains Herro has waived any objections to the interrogatories
The Motion lastly asserts Kukot notified Hem) that a motion to compel would be filed on
June I 2022 it the responses were not Supplemented before then On May 31 2022 Hem)
responded that he would not have any additional information by June 1 maintained he had not
waived objections, that he had answeled all dieeovery requests, and he undelstood his obligation
to supplcmcntpursuantto VI R Civ P 26(e)
Kokot now moves this Court, pursuant to V I R Civ P 37 to compel Hcrm to provide
complete responses to discovery and for sanctions
DISCUSSION
Under the laws of the Virgin Islands, 3 party that fails to produce documents or answer
interrogatmies, by providing evasive or incomplete responses during discovery, may be compelled
by court order to supplement her responses VI R Civ P 37 The scope of discovety, unless
limited by the court, encompasses ‘ any nonprivileged matter [] relevant to any party‘s claim or
defense, and evidence does not have to be admissible evidence to be discoverable V I R Civ P
26(b)
“W R Cw P 37 l(b)maudale§Ihat“[t]he partyrequeatinglcaolution Ufa discovery dispute shallaene a letter on
other counsel Identifying each lune and/or discovery request in dispute, Mating briefly the moving party'a pmition
wuh respect to each (and plmiding any legal authority), and Specifying the terms ofthe dummy order m be sought
Kola)“ S/ John Hunt DLAA LLC (,1 {ll Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U
(.ase No §T 2020 CV 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plaintitt 5 Motion to Compel (Hone)
Page 4 of 15
Whether nonprivilegcd information is diseuverahle is solely determined by considering its
relevance to the matter Donastorg V Walker, 2019 VI Super 96U, 111 1 and Cruz v Vugm leands
Water and Pam erAuthmtty 2020 VI Super SU 112 (eitingl‘mn v Adams Super Ct Civ N0 ST
16 CV 752
2017 WL 5957669 at *3 (V I Super Ct Nov 28 2017) (unpub1ished)) And
evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendenLy to make a fact more or less probable than it w0u1d
be without the evidence, and (b) the fact is Ofconsequcnce in determining the action “ V I R Evid
401
Further, under Rule 37, a court may order the responding party to pay the reasonable
expenses incurred by the movant in the making ofa motion to compel for violating Rules 33 and
34 V I R Civ P 37(a)(5)' Christan! \ Pedenw 2021 VI Super 73U 114 Berkeley 1 Berkeley
2021 v1 Super 22p 1111
Kokot makes the alignment that Hem) waived any objections to the discovery demands as
a matter nflaw pursuant to V I R Ci\ P 33(b)(1)(B)(4) because his responses were late Kokot
further acknowledges the slew of objections that Herro made in his responses but argues that,
even iftimely made, they are meritless
Herro’s Opposition counteis that his objections were not waived and that Kokot continues
to pursue claims against an inconect party, arguing that Home has disclosed and made known that
Cliekbait was owned by Sunsation at 2111 times material hereto The Opposition continues that
Kokot ‘ obstinater refuses to pursue her claims against the correct party”, refusing to amend her
Complaint to pursue the proper patty
Hem) a1so argues that his discovery responses are complete and compliant with Virgin
Islands Rules of Civil Procedure Hem) further argues that some ofthe requests tor information
KnAm 1 51 Julm From D251 LLC 61 11/ Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U
Case No ST 2020 CV 0015]
Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff: Motion to Compel (Herro)
Page 5 0f 16
and documents, dating hack to 2017, are overburdemome since the incident giving rise to Kokot‘s
injuries did not occur until June 15 2019 and thus only that date is pertinent
Kokot counterargues that the purpose of discovery i: to obtain evidence to either support
or challenge a party’s claims or defenses, and thus it is the very reason she is entitled to the
requested discovery in part to test Harm 5 claims that he is not the right pany And even it Herro
is not the coneLt party, Kokot maintains that it does not alleviate Herro’s obligation to provide
answexs to discovery, and that he! right to obtain information about Clickbait i§ not limited to the
date of the incident
I First Set of lnterrogatories
Kokot moves the Court to compel Hem: to supplement his responses to Interrogatory Nos
4 9 10 14, and 15 Pursuant to Rule 33 a movant may serve interrogatories to a lesponding party
whO then must serve their answers within thirty days afiex being served with the interrogatories
V I R Civ P 33 The Court will examine the individual interrogatories and the existing responses
to detennine if they are deficient
a) Intenogatory N0 4
Interrogatory No 4 and Herro’s response, respectively, state
Please explain, in detail, how St John Front Desk, LLC d/b/a Wharfside
Watersports, Justin Bartosh, and/or Michael Ramsey came into possession of
m/v Clickbait such that the Vessel was being operated for charter in 201‘)
HERRO’S RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of
Rights and General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections
HERRO states the vessel was in the custody Oflustin Banosh and Michael Ramsey
while Sunsation Holdings, LLC was arranging for the vessel to moved (sic) from
tho USVI Sunsation Holdings LLC did not authorize the vessel to be chartered
during this time
Kuhn \ S! John From Desk LLC L! a! Cite as 2023 V15uper3U
Case No ST 2020 CV 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Compel (Herro)
Page 6 0t 16
Kokot argues that Hem) a response is insufficient because Hem: did not answer in detail
how Banosh and/or Ramsey came into the possession of Clickbait, only why (emphasis in the
original) 5 Hem) 5 response points out that in the Meritum Webvter DlCthl’llH’y, “how ‘ is defined
as “for what reason ” Hem) maintains his answer is complete and states that Sunsation came into
existence on February 6, 2017 Koknt argues she is entitled to know how Ramsey and/or Banosh
came into possession of Clickbait, how and when the keys to Clickbait were turned over to -
men, and by whom Kokot argues that Hem) relied upon Webste; y secondary definition of‘ how”,
not the principal definition ofhow, which is “in what way or manner ’
The Coun finds that Herro s response is not Lomplete The Court finds that the infomation
requested is discoverable because it is ielevant to Kokot’s negligent entrustment claim Harm’s
response, that Banosh and Ramsey were in possession of Clickbait, while Sunsation aITanged fox
Clickbait to be moved, does not answer how Banosh and Ramsey Lame into possession, and, thus,
it is incomplete As a result, the Court will compel Helm to supplement his response to
1nteir0gatory No 4
b) Interrogatory N0 9 and Interrogatory No 10
Intenogatory Nos 9 and 10, and Herm’s responses, respectively, state
lnterrogatory 9 Please provide the current physical location of m/v Clickbait
(if the name of the vessel has changed since the date of the incident which
formed the basis of this lawsuit, please provide the new name ofthe vessel and
its current physical location)
RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Intloduction Reservation of Rights and
General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any uhjections HERRO
5 Kokot also argues that the claim that Sunsdtlun wa: anangmg for the \essel to be moved 1: contradicted by the
document: proVided in discovery showing that the removal of‘ Clickbait from the territory was done by Harm in 1H5
name on his own behalf not for Simsatmn and in an affidat it dated February 21 2020 Heno identified himself as
owner of the Sunsation vessel and that he bought the Vessel in May 2016 Kokol also attempted to argue DPNR
record: Support thi: statement but the reterenced exhibit doe: not show a DPNR record
Kola)“ 51 John Flam DLAI‘ LLC et 11/ Cite as "023 VI SuperlU
Case No ST 2020 CV 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Comps] (Herm)
Page 7 of 15
States Home objects to this interrogatory as seeking information that is not related
to the claims or defenses of any party Plaintiff is improperly seeking this
intormation in order to attempt to arrest the vessel See Kokot 1 St John Front
Desk LLC 3 20 cv 25
Interrogatory 10 Please state whether the m/v Clickbait is generally kept in a
marina, on a mooring on “on the hard” and please provide the precise location
Where the vessel is generally kept overnight
RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and
General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO
states H0110 objects to this interrogatory as seeking information that is not related
to the claims 0r defenses of any party' Plaintitt is improperly seeking this
intnnnation in order to attempt to attest the vessel Sec Kokot v St John F: (mt
Desk LLC 3 20 CV 25
Kokot argues that Hem: 3 late responses to the interrogatories operate as a waiver of
objections Kokot further argues that Herro s objections are ahsuld and his belict that the vessel
may be arrested has no hearing on the fact that Clickbait is at the heart of the litigation and that
Kokot is entitled to know its location and whether it has been remained, and she is also entitled to
conduct an inspection 0fthe Vessel In the Opposition, Hem) states that Kokot failed to artiLulate
how Clickhait 5 current location is relevant to any claim or defense and that Kokot has not made
the 4ppropriate request to inspect the vessel the Court disagrees
As Kokot points out, parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any patty 5 claim or dctense, and Hem) does not claim this infonnation is privileged
The Court finds that Clickbait is central to this litigation, so its current lucation and name changes
are ielevant, discoverable information that Kokot is entitled to And Kokot need not file d. request
pursuant to V I R Civ P 34, to inspect the Vessel, in order to determine where it is located Thus,
the Court will compel Hem) to supplement his responses to Interrogatmy Nos 9 and 10
Kola)! \ St Julm Front Desk LLC at 1!! Cite as 2023 V1 Super 3U
Case No ST 2020 CV 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plaintift‘: Motion to Compel (Herm)
Pa e 8 0t 16
c) Interrogatory N0 14
Interrogatory No 14 and Hem: 5 response respectively state
Interrogatory 14 lfyou claim that St John Front Desk LLC d/b/a Wharfside
Watersports, Justin Bartosh, and/or Michael Ramsey were accessing or
operating m/v Clickbait in 2019 without permission or your knowledge, please
explain how any of them came into possession 0fthe vessel, and how the vessel
was returned to you
RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction, Reservation of Rights and
Genera1 Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO
states Justin Banosh and Michael Ramsey had custody of the vesse1 while
Sunsation Holdings, LLC was determining how and where to move the vessel They
did not have permission to charter the vessel Once transponation from the USV1
was ananged fox the vessel, Sunsation Holdings, LLC rctneved the vessel
Kokot contends that Hcrro‘s response is insufficient and evasive because Hem) does not
explain how BartOSh 0r Ramsey came into possession of Clickbait in 2019, nor how it was
returned Hone states his answer is complete and responsive Hem) states that Banosh and Ramsey
had custody of CliLkbait while Sumation sorted its transportation but that neither Baitosh nor
Ramsey had permission to charter Clickbdit Be that as it may, the response does not explain how
eithet acquired possession of Clickbdit, nor how it was returned As such, the Court wi1l compel
Hem) to supplement his response to Interrogatory No 14
d) Intenogdtory No 15
Interrogatory N0 15 and Herm’s response, respectively, state
lntermgator) 15 Please state whether )ou Were ever paid by St John Front
Desk, LLC d/b/a Wharfside Watersports, Justin Bartosh, and/or Michael
Ramsey for the use or operation of m/v Clickbait, the dates and amounts of
such payments, the form in which you received pa) ment and, if those funds
were deposited into any bank or other financial institution, the name of that
institution, and the name and account number into which the funds were
deposited
[(0ka \ St John from Desk LLC 9! (ll Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U
Case No SI 2020 CV 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Cmnpel (Herro)
Page 9 of 16
RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and
General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO
states Hem) objects to the disclosure 0t any identification ofbank and/or financial
institutions, and information related to particular account numbers that
information is not reasonably related to any claim or defense in this matter and is
not discoveidble Mr Herm was never paid by St John Front Desk LLC d/b/d
Wharfside Watersports Justin Banosh and/or Michael Ramsey for the operation
of m/v Clickbait
Kokot repeats her contention that Hem: waived his objections by not timely filing
responses In addition Kokot contends that the information sought in Interrogatory N0 15 is
relevant because it would demonstrate whether Hem) was paid far chartering CliLkbait, and that
Wharfside has submitted documents showing that Wharfsidc paid Hem) for the use and operation
ot the vessel Kokot claims Hem: 5 statement that he was never paid by Wharfsidc or Banosh or
Ramsey fox the operation of Clickbait is tnlse
In a nutshell, the dispute surrounding Interrogatory N0 15 is not whether Herro’s response
is complete but that Kokot believes the response is false The Conn finds Herro has sufficiently
responded, stating he was never paid by Wharfside, Banosh, or Ramsey for the operation of
Clickbait Even though Kokot has reason to believe the response is false at this juncture the Court
cannot direct Hem) to change his response or direct him to give a ditterent answet 6 As a result,
the Court will not compel Harm to supplement his response to Intenogdtory No 15
[I First Set of Requests for Production
Kokot also moves the Court to compel Herro to supplement Request tor Production Nos
1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and l l Under Rule 34, a movant may serve any other party a request for production,
5 Hem) procccds, however, at this own risk it he has indeed given a false statement under oath and refuses to retract
m cancel it
KOL0h SI Julm FrumDuk LLC a! u! Cite as "023 VI Super 3U
Case No ST 2020 CV 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Compcl (Heno)
Page 10 0f16
ineluding designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in the other
party 5 possession custody or control V I R Civ P 34(a) Dnnastorg 2019 VI Supei £1135
a) Request fol Production No 1
Request No l and HerrO’s response, respectively, state
Any communications, in any form, between you and the following person(s)
or entities (or any representative thereof) regarding m/v Clickhait, Loren
Kokot, fmd/nr the lawsuit
2 Michael Ramsey;
b St John Front Desk, LLC d/h/a Wharfsidc Watersports;
c Justin Bartosh,
d Nathan Fletcher
RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and
General Objeetions as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO
states Hem) abjects t0 and will not produce communications between Hem) and
legal counsel as they are privileged by the attorney client privilege There 1T3 n0
non privileged communications in his custody, possession or control
Kokot seeks to eumpel Hem) to produce documents iesponsive to Request No l, asserting
that it is not Ciedible that H0110 cannot provide documentation of any requested communication
Request N0 1 demands the production of communications between Hem: and Ramsey Whartside
Bartosh, and Nathan Fletcher, which Herro does not specifically address in his response nor in
Opposition Hem) states that communications between himself and his legal counsel will not be
produced because they are privileged under the attorney client relationship; and the Court agrees
with Hem) that his communieations with his legal Lounsel are privileged But Kokot’s request
does not seek privileged documents, and even if Hem: were to cunsidcr his legal LOLmSCl as his
representative”, the request is much bloader and addresses communications between Helm and
Ramsey Whartside, Banosh, and Nathan Fletcher, none of whom ale Hem) 5 legal representative
Therefore, the CouIt will compel Hem) to supplement his response to Request No 1 t0 the extent
that Harm shall iespond to each subpart ochquest N0 1
Kokoli St John Fran! UL VA LLC at (z! Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U
Case No ST 2020 CV 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Herro)
Page 11 m 16
b) Request for Production No 3
Request N0 3 and Hem) 5 response respectively state
Any receipts or invoices in your possession or otherwise accessible by you for
any repairs or maintenance for m/v Clickbait between January 1, 2018, and
present
RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and
General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objettions HERRO
states This request will be supplemented to the extent that documents are
available To date, Mr Hem) has found no responsive documents in his
possession, custody, or control
Kokot asserts Herru is falsely claiming these documents ate not in his possession Kokot
argues that it these documents are available to Sunsa’tion, they should be available to Hem), who
is a member (If the LLC The Coun finds that evidence of any repairs or maintenance done on
Clickbdit is relevant to Kokot’s injuries Theiefore, t0 the extent that Hem) has possession,
custody, or control of the requested documents, including those documents in the possession,
custody and control OfSunsation, Harm has a duty to pioduce the requested documents and must
supplement his response In Request No 3 In addition to the extent that Heno and/or Sunsation
latel tomes into the possession, Lustody, or contiol ofthe requested datuments, H6110 has a duty
to supplement his response to Request No 3
c) Request for Production N0 7
Request No 7 and Harm 3 response, respectively state
Any written agreements regarding m/V Clickbait St John Front Desk, LLC
d/b/a Wharfside Wntcrsports, Justin Bartosh, and/or Michael Ramsey
RESPONSE HERRO incoxporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and
General Objections as set farth above Without waiving any objections HERRO
states There were no Mitten agreements with the above parties
Kola)“ SI Julm Franz Dc VA LLC £1111 Cite as 2073 VI Super 3U
Case No ST 2020 (V 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Compel (Harm)
Page 12 0t 16
Kokot asselts that Hem) has a legal duty to produce the documents requested even if they
are in Sunsation 5 physical possession The Calm agrees To the extent that Hem) has possession
custody, or control of the tequested documents, including documents in the possession, custody
and control of Sunsation Hem) has a duty to produce the 1equested documents and must
supplement his response to Request N0 7 The Court will therefore order Herro to supplement his
response to Request No 7
d) Request for Production No 8
Request N0 8 and Herro’s response, respectively, state
An) insurance policy for m/V Clickbait in effect at any time between January
1,2017 present
RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and
Gencial Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO
states This request is objected to the extent that it requests iusu1ante policies not
during the time period that is relevant to the issue raised in the complaint in this
matter There is no insurance policy
Of counse, Kokot first aigues that Hem) has waived all objections In addition, Kokot
argues that the insurance policies must be produced because it will give insight as to who held an
insurable interest in Clickbait and would highlight who owned Clickbait especially since Hem) is
claiming that Sunsation Holdings owned the Vessel at the time of the incident giving tise to this
case
Heno’s objection that Kokot is seeking documents outside the relevant timeframe is
without merit since the accident uLcurred in June 2019 The Court notes that Herro does state
“[t]heie is no insurance policy ” However, in light at the earlier portion 0fthe response that raises
an Objection, it is not Clea! ifindeed there was no insulanee policy covering Cliekbait tram January
Kokol \ SI .1011}? From Dull [1C a u] Cite 15 2023 VI Super 3U
Case No 51 2020 (.V 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plamutt 5 Motion to Comps] (Hens)
Page 13 of 16
l 20l7 to the time the request was propounded Therefore the Court will direct Herro to respond
to the request again
e) Request for Production No 10
Request No 10 and Hem) s iesponse respectively state
Any dockage agreements or agreements for the storage, docking or mooring
of m/v Clickbait in effect between January 1, 2018, and present
RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and
General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO
states This request is objected to the extent that it requests insurance policies not
duiing the time period that is relevant to the issue raised in the complaint in this
matter
Again, Kokot points out that Hem) s objections are untimely Kokot maintains that the
documents in this request are relevant to know who Owned Clickbait during that timehame The
CouIt notes that Ham‘s response is non responsive as his responses refer to insurance policies,
while nothing in the iequest references an insurance policy Indeed, Herro‘s response to the Rule
37 l lettei states that Herro’s response to Request N0 10 was in error and that the answei would
be supplemented Pl ’5 Mot to Compel EX 7 But theie seems to have been no supplement
prmided The Court therefoxe relies on the original response The Court finds that the response
is non responsive And the objection was untimely Thercfme, the Court will compel Herro to
supplement Request N0 10 and provide all documents that are responsive, inLluding those in the
possession, custody, or cnntiol 0fSunsation
fl Request for Production No l 1
Request N0 11 and Helm 5 response, respectively, state
Any documentation showing the receipt of any funds you were ever paid by
St John Front Desk, LLC d/b/a Wharfside Watersports, Justin Bartosh,
and/or Michael Ramsey for the use or operation of m/v Clickbait and if those
Kola“ St John Flam Dali LLC (’1 a] Cue as 203 VI Supcr3U
Case No ST 2020 CV 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plainttft 5 Motion to Compel (Hone)
Page 14 of 16
funds were deposited into a bank or other financial institution, documentation
showing the accouut(s) into which those funds were deposited
RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and
General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO
states Hem) objects to the diselosure of any identification of bank and/or financial
institutions and informatian related to partinular account numbers that
information is not reasonably related to any claim or defense in this matter and is
not discoverable There were no payments from any at those parties
Once again, Kokot argues that Herro‘s objections ale untimely In addition, Kukot argues
that documents responsive to this request are relevant as they would prove ownership of Clickhait
and/or whether Hem) was treating Sunsation Holdings as his piggy bank Kokot asserts that
if payments were made to Sumation or another entity contiolled by Hem), Hone has a duty to
obtain and produce those documents Like the response to Request No 8, it is unclear ifthere were
absolutely no payments from any ofthose patties Therefore, the Conn will direct Herro to respond
to the request again
Ill Kokot’s reasonable expenses
Kokot moves the Com, also, to impose sanctions on Hem) because Hem) failed to timely
respond to discovery and his responses weie evasive In the Virgin Islands, “[i]fa party sewed
fails to make all necessary disclosures as required by [Rules 33 and 34] the party requesting
disclosure may move to compel discovexy under Rule 37(a)(l) " Cruz \ Vtrgm Island; Water and
Pane; Authority 2020 VI Super SU 114 And crucially pursuant to Rule 37 [i]fthe motion [to
compel] is granted in pan and denied in pan, the coutt may, after giving an opportunity to be
heard apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion V I R Civ P 37(a)(5)(C) 7
7 Reasonable expenses Include attorney : fees C/u mum \ PEIIEMEH 2021 VI Super 73H, 115 (citing to V l R Liv
P 37(a)(5)(A))
Kokol t S! John [mm Desk LLC or [II Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U
Case No ST 2020 CV 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Comps] (Herm)
Page 15 0f 16
Here, Kokot served the first set ofinterrogatories and requests for production on March 3,
2022 accqrdingly Helm had thirty days to respond See V I R Civ P 33 and 34 Instead on
April 12 2022, Herro requested an extension until April 29 2022 but did not file his responses
until May 5 2022 Kokot then followed up that same May 5 with the Rule 37 1(b)letter detailing
the deficiencies in Harm’s discovery responses
The parties met and conferred in pel son on May 9, 2022, when Helm agteed to supplement
his responses to the discovery demands by May 23 2022 Hem) then failed to supplement any of
his responses by May 23 2022 Kokot informed Hem) that a motion to compel would be filed on
June 1, 2022, ifl-lerro did not supplement his diseovery responses On May 3 l, 2022, Hem) noted
that he would continue asserting objections and that the discovery responses would not be
supplemented This instant motion was subsequently filed
The Court finds that sanctions covering the reasonable expenses for the motion are
appropriate here where the responding party has repeatedly missed deadlines to submit discovery
and is now being compelled to supplement some ofhis responses See V I R Civ P 37 Advisory’s
Committee on Rules comment (“The prevailing party on discovex y motions continues to be entitled
to recover the teasonable expenses entailed in the motion practice, including attomey’s fees ’)
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing the Coutt will grant the Motion in pan and deny the Motion in
part The Court will grant the motion that relates to lnten‘ogamry Nos 4 9 10 and 14 and Request
for Production Nos 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and ll The Court will Older Hem) to provide supplemental
responses to those intermgatories and request for ploduction of documents The Court will deny
Kokot v SI John F/om D?.lk LLC 8! [II Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U
Case No QT 2020 CV 00153
Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff’s Motion to Compcl [Hei-rO)
Page 16 cf 16
the ponion of the Motion that relates to lnterrogatory No 15 Finally the Court will order Hem:
to pay Kokot 5 reasonable expenses incurred in the making 0fthis Motion
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered contemporaneously
herewith
DATED January ,3} (4 2023 & % éé %/
Kathleen Mackay
Judge of the Superior Court
ofthc Virgin Islands
A FTEST
TAMARA CHARLES
Clerk of the Court
—Q{LATOYA CAMACHO
Court Clerk Supeivisor g 2| /fig/ 33