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
THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Defendant to Supplement Its Response to Discovery (Docket No. 33).  Defendant
filed an opposition to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto.
Having reviewed the written submissions, the Court makes the following findings
and conclusions.
Interrogatory No. 2:
Defendant has adequately responded to this interrogatory.  No
further response is necessary.
Interrogatory No. 4:
Defendant has adequately responded to this interrogatory.  No
further response is necessary.
Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC   Document #: 48   Filed: 02/12/10   Page 1 of 6
Roberts v. Kmart Corporation
1:08-cv-90
Order
Page 2
Interrogatory No. 5:
Defendant shall supplement its response.
Interrogatory No. 8:
The Court agrees that the specific location of any
video/surveillance cameras is protected information.  The
Defendant shall supplement its response with information
concerning whether any cameras were positioned in such a
way to capture the underlying incident and, if so, when the
video was reviewed and by whom and the current location of
the video.
Interrogatory No. 9:
Defendant shall supplement its response with the identity of
the employees on duty on June 2, 2008.
Interrogatory No. 10:
Defendant shall supplement its response with the identity of
the employee(s) assigned to the department in which the
underlying incident occurred on the date and time of said
incident.
Interrogatory No. 11:
Defendant shall supplement its response with the identity of
the local contractor who was responsible for cleaning the floors
of the store each night at the time of the underlying incident
and the duration of said contract.
Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC   Document #: 48   Filed: 02/12/10   Page 2 of 6
Roberts v. Kmart Corporation
1:08-cv-90
Order
Page 3
Interrogatory No. 12:
Defendant shall supplement its response with the identity of
the employee(s) assigned to the department in which the
underlying incident occurred on the date of said incident.
Interrogatory No. 13:
Defendant has adequately responded to this interrogatory.  No
further response is necessary.
Interrogatory No. 19:
Defendant shall supplement its response with regard to any
investigation taken after learning of the underlying incident.
Interrogatory No. 22:
Defendant shall supplement regarding substantially similar
incidents involving slip and falls on soapy or other similar
substances on the floor.
Interrogatory Nos. 24 and 25:
Defendant shall supplement with any currently known
facts.
Demand For Production No. 1:
Defendant shall supplement, as offered.
Demand For Production Nos. 2, 3, 19, 26:
Defendant shall supplement with Bates
numbers, as offered.
Demand For Production No.  4:
Defendant has adequately responded to this demand. 
No further response is necessary.
Demand for Production No. 5:
Defendant shall supplement, as offered.
Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC   Document #: 48   Filed: 02/12/10   Page 3 of 6
Roberts v. Kmart Corporation
1:08-cv-90
Order
Page 4
Demand For Production No. 6:
Defendant has adequately responded to this demand. 
No further response is necessary.
Demand For Production No. 7:
Defendant shall supplement.  If no responsive
documents exist, Defendant shall so aver.
Demand For Production No. 9:
Defendant has adequately responded to this demand. 
No further response is necessary.
Demand For Production No. 10: Defendant has adequately responded to this demand. 
No further response is necessary.
Demand For Production No. 11: Defendant shall supplement regarding lawsuits
involving substantially similar slip and falls on soapy or
other similar substances on the floor, the presence of
which Defendant had notice.
Demand For Production No. 14: Defendant shall supplement.  If no responsive
documents exist, Defendant shall so aver.
Demand For Production No. 15: Defendant shall supplement.  If no responsive
documents exist, Defendant shall so aver.
Demand For Production No. 17: Defendant shall supplement.  If no responsive
documents exist, Defendant shall so aver.
Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC   Document #: 48   Filed: 02/12/10   Page 4 of 6
Roberts v. Kmart Corporation
1:08-cv-90
Order
Page 5
Demand For Production No. 25:
Defendant shall supplement its response with copies of
any waivers signed by Plaintiff in its possession.
Demand For Production No. 36: Defendant shall supplement, as offered.
Demand For Production No. 37: Defendant shall supplement its response limited to
those reports from the store where the underlying
incident occurred.
Demand For Production Nos. 38-41:
Defendant shall supplement.  If no responsive
documents exist, Defendant shall so aver.
Demand For Production No. 42: Defendant shall supplement.  If no responsive
documents exist, Defendant shall so aver.
Demand For Production No. 44: Defendant shall supplement.  If no responsive
documents exist, Defendant shall so aver.
Demand For Production Nos. 45, 47, 48, 50:
Defendant shall supplement.  If no
responsive documents exist, Defendant
shall so aver.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED:
Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC   Document #: 48   Filed: 02/12/10   Page 5 of 6
Roberts v. Kmart Corporation
1:08-cv-90
Order
Page 6
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Its Responses to
Discovery (Docket No. 33) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
2.
Defendant shall supplement as directed hereinabove, specifically,
Interrogatory Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 22, 24, and 25, and Demand For
Production Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 25, 26, 37, 38-41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48,
and 50,  within ten (10) days from the date of entry of this order.
ENTER:
Dated: February 12, 2010
/s/ George W. Cannon, Jr.                           
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC   Document #: 48   Filed: 02/12/10   Page 6 of 6