IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
BENNINGTON FOODS, LLC, d/b/a
5
BENNINGTON GROUP,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2006-CV-0154
v.
5
5
ST. CROIX RENAISSANCE GROUP, LLLP,
5
a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation,
5
5
Defendant.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Joel H. Holt, Esq.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH
THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Defendant’s Motion to Quash
Deposition Notice and Subpoena (Docket No. 231).  Plaintiff filed Motion to Strike and Response
in Opposition to said motion, despite numerous directives from the undersigned that counsel refrain
from combining motions with other filings.  Defendant filed a reply to the said opposition.
Defendant objects to the “proposed” notice of deposition and subpoena for GeoNet Ethanol,
L.L.C.  Defendant’s first objection is based upon the fact that it was not properly served with such
notice and subpoena.  However, as Plaintiff explains in its motion/opposition, it did not serve nor
file the actual notice of deposition because it was aware of Defendant’s objections.  Consequently,
Defendant’s first objection is premature.
Defendant’s second objection is based upon relevancy.  As Defendant is well aware, the
deposition of J. Brent Baker, President of GeoNet Ethanol, L.L.C., was specifically authorized by
Case: 1:06-cv-00154-HB   Document #: 248   Filed: 02/24/09   Page 1 of 2
Bennington Foods, LLC. v.  St. Croix Renaissance Group, LLLP
2006-CV-0154
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Quash
Page 2
District Judge Finch in his Order (Docket No. 164) reversing the undersigned’s order denying
Plaintiff’s motion to modify pre-trial schedule for the limited purpose of conducting depositions and
requesting certain documents.  The said Order allows Plaintiff to conduct the “seven specified
depositions and request documents and correspondences [sic] related to Renaissance’s leasehold
1
negotiations with GeoNet Ethanol, L.L.C.”  Id. at 3.  Thus, Plaintiff may depose Mr. Baker and
inquire regarding GeoNet’s leasehold negotiations with Defendant.  Upon review, the Court finds
that the subjects outlined in Exhibit A of the “proposed” notice of deposition are within the scope
of inquiry as identified by Judge Finch.
WHEREFORE, it is now hereby ORDERED:
1.
Defendant’s Motion to Quash Deposition Notice and Subpoena (Docket No. 231) is
DENIED.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Docket No. 238) is DENIED.
3.
The deposition of J. Brent Baker may be noticed by Plaintiff for a date, time, and
location acceptable to all parties.2
ENTER:
DATED: January 24, 2009
/s/ George W. Cannon, Jr.                               
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1.  Plaintiff identified seven (7) specific deponents in its motion to modify, and J. Brent Baker was one (1)of the seven
(7).
2.  Plaintiff states in footnote no. 1 of its motion/opposition that the subpoena directed to Mr. Baker has been served. 
The Court notes, however, that the record is void of the filing of any notice thereof.
Case: 1:06-cv-00154-HB   Document #: 248   Filed: 02/24/09   Page 2 of 2