DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
ELENA MURPHY, as mother and next of
5
friend of Desiree Irizarry Murphy, a Minor,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2006-CV-0040
v.
5
5
GRACIELA RIVERA; CARIBBEAN AUTO
5
MART OF ST. CROIX, INC.; JAMAL
5
MISBEH d/b/a A One Mini Mart & Service
5
Station; and LUIS DANIEL RIVERA,
5
5
Defendants. 5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq.
Douglas L. Capedville, Esq.
Jomo Meade, Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff and Defendant Caribbean Auto
Mart’s Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Caribbean Auto
Mart For Complete Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 89).
Having reviewed the joint stipulation and upon due consideration thereof, the Court
makes the following findings concerning the discovery requests at issue:
Case: 1:06-cv-00040-RLF-GWC   Document #: 115   Filed: 02/22/08   Page 1 of 3
Murphy v. Rivera
2006-CV-0040
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 2
Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12:
These interrogatories purportedly concern said
Defendant’s second and fourth affirmative defenses.  A
review of said Defendant’s answer reveals that said
Defendant’s second affirmative defense does not assert
failure to mitigate damages as stated in Interrogatory
No. 11.  Likewise, said Defendant’s fourth affirmative
defense does not assert that Plaintiff’s damages were
sustained as a result of Plaintiff’s own actions as stated
in Interrogatory No. 12; rather, the fourth affirmative
defense asserts that the complaint fails to state a cause
of action for punitive damages.  Consequently, the
Court finds these interrogatories to be nonsensical.  As
such, said Defendant is not required to provide a
“complete response” to same.
Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14:
These interrogatories concern said Defendant’s fifth and
seventh affirmative defenses.  A review of said
Defendant’s answer reveals that said Defendant’s fifth
affirmative defense asserts a statute of limitations
Case: 1:06-cv-00040-RLF-GWC   Document #: 115   Filed: 02/22/08   Page 2 of 3
Murphy v. Rivera
2006-CV-0040
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 3
defense and the seventh affirmative defense reserves
the right to amend the said answer.  Neither of these
affirmative defenses contain anything remotely
resembling the allegations of the interrogatories at
issue.  The Court finds that said Defendant cannot
provide complete responses to these interrogatories.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Defendant Caribbean Auto Mart For Complete Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 89) is
DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: February 22, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.                      
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:06-cv-00040-RLF-GWC   Document #: 115   Filed: 02/22/08   Page 3 of 3