DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
AMALIZ FELIX, individually and as
5
next friend and mother of ROBERT A.
5
RUIZ, JR.,
5
5
Plaintiffs,     
5
2006-CV-0049
v.
5
5
FAROUK A. HASSIEB,
5
5
Defendant.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
James L. Hymes, III, Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation Regarding
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Transcribed Statements Taken by Defendant’s
Insurance Company (Docket No. 24).
Having reviewed the said joint stipulation and upon due consideration thereof, the
Court finds that the statement at issue was given by Defendant to his insurer not in relation
to a first party claim and, therefore, discoverable as generated in the ordinary course of
business; but, rather, as part of the investigation of this third-party claim, in anticipation
Case: 1:06-cv-00049-AET-GWC   Document #: 42   Filed: 02/20/08   Page 1 of 2
Felix v. Hassieb
2006-CV-0049
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 2
of litigation.  See, e.g., Taylor v. Temple & Cutler, 192 F.R.D. 552, 558 (E.D. Mich. 1999) (citing
Weitzman v. Blazing Pedals, Inc., 151 F.R.D. 125 (D. Colo. 1993)).
Consequently, the Court finds that the statement at issue and the transcription
thereof constitute work product and, therefore, not discoverable, absent a showing or
substantial need or undue hardship.  Plaintiffs’ bald assertion that they need the
information at issue is insufficient to carry their burden.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Production of Transcribed Statements Taken by Defendant’s Insurance Company (Docket
No. 24) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: February 20, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:06-cv-00049-AET-GWC   Document #: 42   Filed: 02/20/08   Page 2 of 2