DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
HAMM & BARRY, a Virgin Islands
5
partnership; and Donovan M. Hamm and
5
Edward L. Barry, individually,
5
2007-CV-0082
5
Plaintiffs,
5
v.
5
5
ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, P.C., a 5
South Carolina professional corporation, and 5
EUGENE F. ROGERS, individually,
5
5
Defendants.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Edward L. Barry, Esq.
Carol Ann Rich, Esq.
ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File
Court Document Under Seal (Docket No. 26).  In response, Defendants filed a document
titled “Request to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw Reference; to Decalre [sic]
Non Core Status and to Honor Plaintiffs’ Demand For Jury Trial” (Docket No. 27). 
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a document titled “Reply Re Motion to Withdraw Reference; to
Declare Non-Core Status; and to Honor Plaintiffs’ Demand For Jury Trial” (Docket No. 29).
Case: 1:07-cv-00082-RLF-GWC   Document #: 30   Filed: 11/26/08   Page 1 of 3
Hamm & Barry v. Rogers, Townsend & Thomas, P.C.
2007-CV-0082
Order
Page 2
It is clear from the record that the only motion currently before this Court is
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File Court Document Under Seal (Docket No. 26).  While
Plaintiffs also filed a document titled “Notice of Filing Motion to Withdraw Reference;
Declare Non-Core Status; and to Honor Plaintiffs’ Demand For Jury Trial” (Docket No. 25),
purporting to file said motion to withdraw under seal, no such titled motion has ever been
filed with the Court.
Having reviewed the Motion For Leave to File Court Document Under Seal and
having considered the premises therein, and given Plaintiffs’ representation that the
“content of Plaintiffs’ Motion [to Withdraw] does not address the substantive issues [of the
bankruptcy matter] in any great factual detail,” Motion at 1, the Court finds no reason to
seal such document.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File Court Document Under Seal (Docket No.
26) is DENIED.
2.
Defendants’ request to dismiss or stay Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw
Reference (Docket No. 27) is DENIED AS MOOT.
3.
Plaintiffs may file their motion to withdraw, if they so choose, and the
relevant procedural rules shall apply thereto.
Case: 1:07-cv-00082-RLF-GWC   Document #: 30   Filed: 11/26/08   Page 2 of 3
Hamm & Barry v. Rogers, Townsend & Thomas, P.C.
2007-CV-0082
Order
Page 3
4.
A status conference in this matter is scheduled for December 9, 2008, at 11:30
a.m., in Magistrate’s Chambers.
ENTER:
Dated: November 26, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:07-cv-00082-RLF-GWC   Document #: 30   Filed: 11/26/08   Page 3 of 3