DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
JUAN MENDEZ, JUAN MORALES, RENE
5
VARGAS, FRANK ORTIZ, REYNALDO
5
RODRIGUEZ, JAIME GARCIA, and PEDRO 5
2002-CV-0169
CARPIO,
5
5
Plaintiffs,
5
v.
5
5
HOVENSA, L.L.C.,
5
5
Defendant.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Onik’a Gilliam, Esq. -- Fax 774-7300
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANT FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions Against
Defendant For Failure to Properly Appear For Deposition (Docket No. 236).  Defendant
filed an opposition to said motion, and Plaintiffs filed a reply thereto.
Although not forthrightly stated within said motion, Plaintiffs’ said motion
ostensibly seeks sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, as Plaintiffs state, “If the
corporation provides witnesses who cannot answer questions listed in the notice of the
deposition, then the corporation . . . is subject to the same sanctions as those allowed for
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 270   Filed: 08/10/07   Page 1 of 4
Mendez v. HOVENSA, L.L.C
2002-CV-0169
Order Striking Plaintiffs’ Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant For Failure to Properly Appear For
Deposition
Page 2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) provides for sanctions due to “failure of party to attend at own deposition . . .
1
.”
the failure to appear at a deposition . . . .  Thus, the sanctions are the same as allowed under
Rule 37 defendant [sic].”  Motion at 2 (citations omitted).1
While the amendments to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37 still are relatively new,
all members of the bar are required to know and adhere to the procedures detailed therein.
LRCi 37.1 explicitly states, “Prior to the filing of any motion relating to discovery pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-37, counsel for the parties shall confer in a good faith effort to eliminate
the necessity for hearing the motion or to eliminate as many of the disputes as possible.”
LRCi 37.1.  As the instant motion is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and involves a
discovery dispute, it falls within the purview of LRCi 37.  Subparagraph 37.2 continues, “If
counsel are unable to settle their differences, they shall formulate a written stipulation.”
LRCi 37.2.  Moreover, the “stipulation must be set forth in one document signed by both
counsel.”  LRCi 37.2(a).  In the present matter, as already noted by the Court, Plaintiffs filed
a motion, not a joint stipulation, to which Defendant filed a separate opposition, and
Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Reply.
Inasmuch as a stipulation was not filed, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows such
an occurrence only when counsel for the moving party establishes that
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 270   Filed: 08/10/07   Page 2 of 4
Mendez v. HOVENSA, L.L.C
2002-CV-0169
Order Striking Plaintiffs’ Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant For Failure to Properly Appear For
Deposition
Page 3
opposing counsel
(1)
failed to confer in a timely manner in accordance with L.R.
37.1;
(2)
failed to provide the opposing party’s portion of the joint
stipulation in a timely manner in accordance with L.R. 37.2(b);
or
(3)
refused to sign and return the joint stipulation after the
opposing party’s portion was added.
LRCi 37.2(d).  Such a declaration from counsel for Plaintiffs is completely absent from the
instant motion.  In fact, Plaintiffs state in their Reply,
On June 12, 2007, an extensive meet and confer was conducted and the
parties could not agree on the issues; this was confirmed in writing.  On June
13, 2007, Defendant sent a supplemental letter as to issues discussed in the
meet and confer, again magnifying the fact that the parties could not agree.
As a result, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Sanctions for Failing to Appear
for Deposition
Reply at 2-3.  LRCi 37.2(d) specifically provides, “The Court will not consider any
discovery motion in the absence of a joint stipulation or a declaration from counsel for the
moving party establishing” the above-quoted recalcitrance of opposing counsel.
Thus, in the absence of a joint stipulation and a declaration from counsel for
Plaintiffs establishing the failure of opposing counsel to meet and confer, timely provide
its portion of the joint stipulation, or refusal to sign the joint stipulation, this Court will not
consider Plaintiffs’ said motion and will strike same.
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 270   Filed: 08/10/07   Page 3 of 4
Mendez v. HOVENSA, L.L.C
2002-CV-0169
Order Striking Plaintiffs’ Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant For Failure to Properly Appear For
Deposition
Page 4
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion For Sanctions Against
Defendant For Failure to Properly Appear For Deposition (Docket No. 236) is STRICKEN
as procedurally deficient.
ENTER:
Dated: August 10, 2007
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 270   Filed: 08/10/07   Page 4 of 4