DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
FORREST THOMAS,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2003-CV-0163
v.
5
5
CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS
5
CORP., CENTENNIAL CRIBBEAN
5
HOLDING CORP., and CENTENNIAL
5
USVI OPERATIONS CORP.,
5
5
Defendants.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Simone R.D. Francis, Esq.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Expert Report
of Paul F. White and to Preclude Him From Testifying (Docket No. 160) and Motion to Stay
Rebuttal Deadline (Docket No. 161).  Defendant Centennial USVI Operations Corp. filed
an opposition to each motion.  The time for filing any reply has expired.
With regard to Plaintiff’s motion to strike, the record reflects that Defendant
Centennial USVI Operations Corp. filed a Notice of Defendant’s Designation of Paul F.
White as an Expert Witness (Docket No. 152), by the deadline for naming its experts. 
Although Mr. White’s report was not submitted at the same time as his designation, said
Case: 1:03-cv-00163-DWA-GWC   Document #: 179   Filed: 05/22/09   Page 1 of 3
Thomas v. Centennial Communications Corp.
2003-CV-0163
Order
Page 2
Defendant filed a Motion For Enlargement of Time to Furnish Expert Report of Paul F.
White (Docket No. 151), which the Court granted nunc pro tunc by Order (Docket No. 162),
entered March 25, 2009.  The order allowed said Defendant until March 2, 2009, to file the
report; the record demonstrates that said Defendant filed a notice of service of expert report
on March 5, 2009.
In his attempt to demonstrate prejudice, Plaintiff asserts, “Defendant filed its expert
report four (4) days after the time for expert depositions has expired.”  Motion at 1.  
However, in the sentence immediately preceding this claim, Plaintiff acknowledges that the
Court “set the deadline for expert depositions to be completed by May 1, 2009.”  Id. 
Obviously, March 5, 2009, did not occur (4) days past May 1, 2009.  Even in the absence of
such a ludicrous statement, the Court finds that the additional three (3) days does not
prejudice Plaintiff in any way.  Consequently, the Court will deny the motion to strike.
As a result of filing his motion to strike, Plaintiff felt compelled to file a motion to
stay rebuttal deadline.  Motions to stay are committed to the sound discretion of the Court. 
See, e.g., Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d Cir. 1983).  Being advised
in the premises and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that a stay of rebuttal
deadline is not warranted.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED:
Case: 1:03-cv-00163-DWA-GWC   Document #: 179   Filed: 05/22/09   Page 2 of 3
Thomas v. Centennial Communications Corp.
2003-CV-0163
Order
Page 3
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Expert Report of Paul F. White and to Preclude
Him From Testifying (Docket No. 160) is DENIED.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Rebuttal Deadline (Docket No. 161) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: May 22, 2009
/s/ George W. Cannon, Jr.                           
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:03-cv-00163-DWA-GWC   Document #: 179   Filed: 05/22/09   Page 3 of 3