DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
CONRAD LAURENT,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2005-CV-0125
v.
5
5
COST-U-LESS V.I., COST-U-LESS, INC.,
5
5
Defendant. 5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
C. Beth Moss, Esq.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation Regarding
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants Cost-U-Less and Cost-U-Less V.I. For Complete
Responses to Rule 26 Disclosures and Discovery (Docket No. 36).
Having reviewed the joint stipulation, the Court makes the following findings and
conclusions.
Issue No. 1:
Plaintiff has been informed that there are no insurance policies applicable to
this matter.  Thus, this request is moot.
Interrogatory No. 1:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Case: 1:05-cv-00125-RLF-GWC   Document #: 44   Filed: 09/12/07   Page 1 of 5
Laurent v. Cost-U-Less V.I.
2005-CV-0125
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 2
Interrogatory No. 3:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Interrogatory No. 4:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Interrogatory No. 5:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Interrogatory No. 6:
Defendant Cost-U-Less, Inc., has agreed to supplement with
the address of Brian Rose.
Interrogatory No. 7:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Interrogatory No. 8:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Interrogatory No. 9:
Defendant Cost-U-Less, Inc., has agreed to supplement with
the last known addresses of the individuals referenced in its
response.
Interrogatory No. 10:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Case: 1:05-cv-00125-RLF-GWC   Document #: 44   Filed: 09/12/07   Page 2 of 5
Laurent v. Cost-U-Less V.I.
2005-CV-0125
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 3
Interrogatory No. 11:
Defendants have agreed to supplement with the dates each
person supervised Plaintiff.
Interrogatory No. 12:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Interrogatory No. 13:
Defendants have agreed to supplement their responses.
Interrogatory No. 15:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Interrogatory No. 16:
Defendants have agreed to supplement their responses.
Interrogatory No. 17:
Defendants have agreed to supplement their responses.
Interrogatory No. 18:
Defendants have agreed to supplement their responses.
Interrogatory No. 19:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Interrogatory No. 20:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Interrogatory No. 21:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants have agreed to
supplement with information related to the store manager
position after the execution of a confidentiality agreement.
Case: 1:05-cv-00125-RLF-GWC   Document #: 44   Filed: 09/12/07   Page 3 of 5
Laurent v. Cost-U-Less V.I.
2005-CV-0125
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 4
Interrogatory No. 22:
The Court sustains Defendants’ objections.  Defendants need
not respond.
Interrogatory No. 23:
Defendants’ responses are adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Interrogatory Nos. 24 and 25:
Defendants have agreed to supplement their responses.
Demand For Production No. 3:
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Demand For Production Nos. 4, 13, 16, and 19: Defendants’ responses are adequate.
Defendants need not supplement.
Demand For Production Nos. 5, 10, 17, and 18: Defendants’ response is adequate.
Defendants have agreed to supplement
with information related to the store
manager position after the execution of a
confidentiality agreement.
Demand For Production Nos. 20 and 24:
Defendants have agreed to supplement
their responses.
Based upon the forgoing, it is now hereby ORDERED:
Case: 1:05-cv-00125-RLF-GWC   Document #: 44   Filed: 09/12/07   Page 4 of 5
Laurent v. Cost-U-Less V.I.
2005-CV-0125
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 5
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants Cost-U-Less and Cost-U-Less V.I.
For Complete Responses to Rule 26 Disclosures and Discovery (Docket No.
36) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
2. 
In the event Defendants have not already done so, Defendants shall serve
supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 24, and
25 and Demand For Production Nos. 20 and 24 upon counsel for Plaintiff
within ten (10) days from the date of entry of this Order.
3.
In the event the parties have not already done so, the parties shall enter into
a confidentiality agreement within ten (10) days from the date of entry of this
Order.
4.
Defendants shall serve supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 21 and
Demand For Production Nos. 5, 10, 17, and 18 upon counsel for Plaintiff
within five (5) days from the date of execution of the confidentiality
agreement between the parties.
ENTER:
Dated: September 12, 2007
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00125-RLF-GWC   Document #: 44   Filed: 09/12/07   Page 5 of 5