DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
CAMILLE MACEDON a/k/a KING DERBY,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2001-CV-0079
v.
5
5
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS,5
VIRGIN ISLANDS CARNIVAL
5
COMMITTEE,
5
5
Defendants.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Carol Thomas Jacobs, Esq., AAG
Tamika Archer, Esq., AAG
Arturo Watlington, Jr., Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation Regarding
Plaintiff’s [sic] Motion to Compel Advisory Letters From Defendant (Docket No. 176).
Plaintiffs seek two advisory letters of the Attorney General referenced in a Superior
Court decision, Virgin Islands Carnival Comm’e, Inc. v. Legistrature of the Virgin Islands, 46 V.I.
33 (Terr. Cr. 2004).  Defendant asserts that one of the letters sought does not exist nor was
it referenced in the court opinion as Plaintiffs claim.  With regard to the other letter
requested, Defendant maintains that the said letter is irrelevant because it was superseded
Case: 1:01-cv-00079-HB-GWC   Document #: 243   Filed: 12/13/07   Page 1 of 2
Macedon v. Government of the Virgin Islands
2001-CV-0079
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 2
by the very opinion cited by Plaintiffs.  In addition, Defendant argues that the motion to
compel is procedurally improper as Plaintiffs never served Defendant with a proper
demand for production for the letters at issue.
Having reviewed the joint stipulation and the case cited by Plaintiffs, the Court finds
that the cited opinion does not reference an advisory letter dated March 4, 2004, issued by
the Attorney General.  With regard to the September 22. 2003, letter, the Court finds that,
because said advisory opinion was superseded by the ruling in Virgin Islands Carnival
Comm’e, it is irrelevant and, therefore, Defendant does not need to produce it.  The Court
further finds that in the absence of a proper request for production submitted under Rule
34, a motion to compel the discovery, pursuant to Rule 37, is improper.  Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(2)(B).
Based upon the foregoing, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Advisory Letters From Defendant (Docket No. 176) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: December 13, 2007
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:01-cv-00079-HB-GWC   Document #: 243   Filed: 12/13/07   Page 2 of 2