DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
 
 
 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
MILES LIVINGSTON, ANNA  
 
║ 
 
LIVINGSTON and CHRISTOPHER   
║ 
GLAVACH, 
 
 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
1:19-cv-00012 
 
 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
║ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
LOUIS BERGER formerly LOUIS   
║ 
BERGER GROUP, VIRGIN ISLANDS  
║ 
WATER & POWER AUTHORITY, and 
║ 
BLUESOURCE, LLC,  
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
Defendants.  
║ 
________________________________________________ ║ 
║ 
LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.,  
 
║ 
║ 
Third-Party Plaintiff,  
 
║ 
║ 
v. 
 
 
 
 
║ 
║ 
BLUESOURCE, LLC,   
 
 
║ 
║ 
Third-Party Defendant.  
 
║ 
________________________________________________ ║ 
║ 
LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.,  
 
║ 
║ 
 
Third-Party Plaintiff,  
 
║ 
║ 
v. 
 
 
 
 
║ 
║ 
ACP, LLC,  
 
 
 
 
║ 
║ 
 
Third-Party Defendant.  
 
║ 
________________________________________________ ║ 
 
TO: 
Lee J. Rohn, Esq. 
 
Eugenio W.A. Geigel-Simounet, Esq. 
Scot F. McChain, Esq.  
Case: 1:19-cv-00012-WAL-EAH     Document #: 233     Filed: 07/23/21     Page 1 of 4
Miles Livingston et al. v. Louis Berger et al.  
1:19-cv-00012 
Order Denying Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order 
Page 2 
 
 
 
Yohana M. Manning, Esq.  
Carl A. Beckstedt, III, Esq.  
Daryl C. Barnes, Esq. 
James L. Hymes, III, Esq.  
Warren B. Cole, Esq. 
 
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 
ORDER 
 
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Miles Livingston’s, Anna 
Livingston’s, and Christopher Glavach’s Motion for Sanctions for failure to Comply with 
Court Order (ECF No. 228) and Louis Berger’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions 
(ECF No. 232). Plaintiffs did not file a Reply.  
Plaintiffs request that the Court sanction Louis Berger for failing to Comply with the 
Court’s Order granting Plaintiffs motion to compel supplemental discovery responses (ECF 
No. 228 at 1); (see also ECF No. 143 at 6).1 Following this motion, Louis Berger filed a 
Notice of Service of Louis Berger’s Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Mile 
Livingston’s Second Demand for Production of Documents (ECF No. 231).  
Then Louis Berger responded that it submitted “track down” emails related to the 
ordering and acquisition of arc flash PPE; however, it did not produce changes to Army 
 
1 As part of the sanction, Plaintiffs request that the Court order Louis Berger to pay their 
counsel “$400.00, representing one (1) hour of an attorney’s time for having to bring this 
motion” (ECF No. 228 at 3). In addition, Plaintiffs request that the Court “caution Defendant 
that further failure to adhere to this Court’s orders will result in further sanctions, 
including deeming Plaintiff’s allegations as admitted and striking Defendant Louis 
Berger[‘s]…affirmative defenses.” Id. at 3. 
Case: 1:19-cv-00012-WAL-EAH     Document #: 233     Filed: 07/23/21     Page 2 of 4
Miles Livingston et al. v. Louis Berger et al.  
1:19-cv-00012 
Order Denying Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order 
Page 3 
 
 
 
Corps. Of Engineers Work Order Issuance Procedures because “[n]o information was 
found” (ECF No. 232 at 1-2).  
As to its failure to produce “track down” emails before Plaintiffs filed this motion, 
Louis Berger responds that it inadvertently failed to do so because of a 
“precipitated…medical condition requiring [its attorney] to undergo heart surgery on two 
occasions in 2021, the first one taking place during the last week of January, 2021, with 
follow up procedures in April, 2021.” Id at. 2. In addition, counsel for Louis Berger 
apologizes to this Court for its inability to “fully concentrate on case matters as a 
consequence of his physical condition, and respectfully submits that there was no willful 
intention to withhold his information and that a failure to do so was solely the result of 
human error to which all of us fall prey for time to time.”2 Id. at 2. 
Local Rule 7.1(f) states, “[u]nless there are exigent circumstances, all non-
dispositive motions shall contain a representation that the movant sought concurrence in 
the motion from each party, and that it has either been granted or denied.” LRCi 7.1(f).  
First, the Court finds no exigent circumstances that would extinguish Plaintiffs’ 
requirement to seek concurrence before bringing this motion. Second, there is no 
indication that Plaintiffs sought concurrence from each party before bringing this motion. 
 
2 Louis Berger also lays out the substantive grounds for denying the motion, but the Court 
sees no reason to entertain these arguments because, as will be discussed, Plaintiffs failed 
to comply with LRCi 7.1(f) in bringing this motion. 
Case: 1:19-cv-00012-WAL-EAH     Document #: 233     Filed: 07/23/21     Page 3 of 4
Miles Livingston et al. v. Louis Berger et al.  
1:19-cv-00012 
Order Denying Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order 
Page 4 
 
 
 
Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions for their failure to comply with 
LRCi 7.1(f).  
WHEREFORE, it is now hereby ORDERED: 
1. Plaintiffs Miles Livingston’s, Anna Livingston’s, and Christopher Glavach’s 
Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order (ECF No. 228) is 
DENIED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ENTER: 
 
Dated: July 23, 2021  
 
 
 
/s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Case: 1:19-cv-00012-WAL-EAH     Document #: 233     Filed: 07/23/21     Page 4 of 4