DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
JULIE A. GIDDINGS-SLAVEN, 
5
5
Plaintiff,  
5
2006-CV-0165
v.
5
5
MVM, INC., and UNITED GOVERNMENT 5
SECURITY OFFICERS OF AMERICA, and 
5
Affiliated LOCAL 33,
5
5
Defendants.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Natalie Nelson Tang How, Esq.
Andrew L. Capdeville, Esq.
Chad C. Messier, Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND FACTUAL DISCOVERY
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Factual
Discovery (Docket No. 66).  Defendant United Government Security Officers of America,
and its Local 33, filed a memorandum in opposition to said motion.  This order is issued
without necessity of reply.
Factual discovery in this matter closed on October 1, 2008.  Order Granting Joint
Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline (Docket No. 53).  By her current motion, Plaintiff
seeks to re-open discovery.  Plaintiff claims that “[d]ue to issues that were raised during
the course of mediation, it became evident that there may be conflicting representations,
Case: 1:06-cv-00165-RLF-GWC   Document #: 73   Filed: 11/24/08   Page 1 of 3
Giddings-Slaven v. MVM, Inc.. 
2006-CV-0165
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Factual Discovery
Page 2
including those made by some of the named witnesses. . . . Plaintiff seeks the opportunity
to address these issues through supplemental written discovery and depositions of
pertinent witnesses.”  Motion at 1.  According to Plaintiff, mediation was held on
September 8, 2008.  Id.  Plaintiff filed her motion on October 31, 2008, almost two months
after the said mediation and almost one month exactly after the factual discovery deadline.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that movant must offer justification for its delay in
seeking the discovery.  See, e.g., Johnson v. Thru-Point, Inc., 160 Fed. Appx. 159, 162 (3d Cir.
2005) (where the court states, “Untimely amendments and discovery are disfavored where
the movant offers no justification for the delay”).  Even though Plaintiff claims to have been
unaware of the possibility of conflicting evidence, Plaintiff acknowledges that the discovery
now sought  includes depositions of named witnesses.  As in the Johnson case, Plaintiff in
the matter at bar does not present any reason why she could not have obtained the
discovery she now seeks during the almost two years this matter was pending prior to the
close of discovery.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Factual
Discovery (Docket No. 66) is DENIED.
Case: 1:06-cv-00165-RLF-GWC   Document #: 73   Filed: 11/24/08   Page 2 of 3
Giddings-Slaven v. MVM, Inc.. 
2006-CV-0165
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Factual Discovery
Page 3
ENTER:
Dated: November 24, 2008
                                /s/                                    
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:06-cv-00165-RLF-GWC   Document #: 73   Filed: 11/24/08   Page 3 of 3