DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
CAONA JARVIS,
5
 
5
Plaintiff,
5
CIVIL NO. 2005/0077
v.
5
5
PREMUDA, S.p.A., owner and owner 5 
pro hac vice of the Vessel FOUR 
5
ETOILES,
5
5
Defendant.
5
____________________________________5
TO:
John K. Dema, Esq.
Chetema Lucas Francis, Esq.
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)
THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff Caona Jarvis’
Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) (Docket No.
126).  Defendant Premuda filed an Opposition thereto, and Plaintiff filed a Reply.  
Plaintiff requests an Order “precluding any opinions in trial testimony of Captain
Geary . . . based on any materials or documents (upon which Captain Geary relied . . . ),
which Defendant did not provide ‘hard copies’ of to Plaintiff, as required in the May 10,
2007[,] and May 16, 2007[,] Orders.”  Motion at 1.  The undersigned’s Order (Docket No.
119) dated May 10, 2007, ruled “the production of . . . requested documents . . .
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 161   Filed: 07/18/07   Page 1 of 7
Jarvis v. Premuda
2005-CV-0077
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)
Page 2
warranted[,]” and ordered “Defendant [to] serve upon counsel for Plaintiff hard copies of
[said] requested documents on or before 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 16, 2007.”  Order
Regarding Emergency Motion by Plaintiff to Obtain Materials at 1-2.  The undersigned’s
Order (Docket No. 122) dated May 16, 2007, reiterated Defendant’s obligation to serve hard
copies “on or before 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 16, 2007.”  Order Regarding Emergency
Motion by Plaintiff to Regulate Deposition Fee at 3.  Defendant puts forth that it “fully
complied with the Court’s . . . Orders[,]” and “Plaintiff’s motion is completely frivolous,
not based in fact and without merit . . . .”  Opposition at 4-5.  
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) states if “a person designated . . . to testify
on behalf of a party fails to obey an order to provide . . . discovery, . . . the court in which
the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just . . . .”  Such
an order may include “[a]n order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or
oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing
designated matters in evidence . . . .”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(B).  Rule 37 grants the Court
broad discretion in imposing sanctions.  Callwood v. Zurita, 158 F.R.D. 359, 361 (D. V.I. 1994).
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 161   Filed: 07/18/07   Page 2 of 7
Jarvis v. Premuda
2005-CV-0077
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)
Page 3
When determining whether to exclude evidence, the undersigned must apply the
factors outlined in Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass’n, 559 F.2d 894, 904-05
(3d Cir. 1977), overruled on other grounds, Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 777 .2d 113 (3d Cir.
1977) aff'd, 482 U.S. 656, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 96 L.Ed.2d 572 (1987).
The court in Meyers articulated the following four (4) elements that must be
considered:
(1) the prejudice or surprise in fact of the party against whom the excluded
witnesses would have testified, (2) the ability of that party to cure the
prejudice, (3) the extent to which waiver of the rule against calling unlisted
witnesses would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case or of other
cases in the court, and (4) bad faith or willfulness . . . .
Meyers, 559 F.2d at 904-05.
In the instant case, this Court previously deemed the production of said documents
in question warranted; furthermore, May 16, 2007, at 5:00 p.m. was deemed the date upon
which said hard copies should be submitted.  The undersigned found relevant the fact that
the deposition at issue was a telephonic deposition and the deponent and his file were
overseas.  Order Regarding Emergency Motion by Plaintiff to Regulate Deposition Fee at
1-2.  In doing so, the undersigned found any other alternative form of production, such as
submitting a listing of internet addresses where the documents could be found, prejudicial
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 161   Filed: 07/18/07   Page 3 of 7
Jarvis v. Premuda
2005-CV-0077
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)
Page 4
to Plaintiff.  Accordingly, this Court ordered the following documents, which Plaintiff
listed as “critical to have in hand,” produced:
5. ANSI Z41 Protective Footwear Standard; 9. Reliance on “Texas State Office
of Risk Management” and “State Employee Workers Compensation and Risk
Management Division” – Geary fails to identify any specific laws, regulations
or provisions but Report contains quotations from these authorities.
PROVIDE THE AUTHORITES (sic) WHICH GEARY IS RELYING UPON
AND QUOTING FROM; 10. Rules and Regulations of 1974 International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and Amendments; 11. The Code of
Safety for Cargo Ships Operating in the Caribbean; 12. International Safety
Management Code; 13. Unidentified State Regulatory Agencies Rules and
Regulations; 14. British Maritime and Coastguard Agency Regulations
15.2.2.1 through 15.2.2.8; 16. Code of Safety for Caribbean Cargo Ships,
Chapter 2, Part C, Sections 2.12; 17. Code of Safety for Caribbean Cargo
Ships, Chapter 3, Part B, Section 3.16.1, 3.16.1.2, and 3.16.1.3; 18. Seafarers’
Training, Certification and Watch-keeping Code, Chapter V, Section B-V/1,
and Regulation 8; 19. Coast Guard-issued Certificate of Compliance to Four
Etoiles valid to April 5, 2004; 20.  SOLAS II-2/G4.7 Protocols; 21. Documents
Evidencing the 21 individual Port State Control Inspections of the Four
Etoiles between Sept. 11, 1999[,] and March 13, 2006; 22. Stairways and
Ladder-ways (Not identified where this is from), Sections 15.2.2.1 to 15.2.2.8;
23. Safety Management Certificate Issued by the RINA (IACS White List) on
August 8, 2002; 24. OHSA (sic) Form 301; 25.  OSHA Form 300; 26. OSHA
Form 300A; 27. Statutory and Legal Authority for Reference to Illinois “PPE
Review” and Identification of Origin of Illinois Personal Protective
Equipment Review Chart Contained In Report; 28. New York U.S. Coast
Guard Port State Control Inspection of the Four Etoiles on June 20, 2003.
Emergency Motion by Plaintiff to Obtain Materials (Docket No. 115) at 4-5 (internal
citations omitted).
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 161   Filed: 07/18/07   Page 4 of 7
Jarvis v. Premuda
2005-CV-0077
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)
Page 5
Plaintiff alleges six (6) authorities “identified in Plaintiff’s original motion . . . were
NOT given to Plaintiff in hard copy form.”  Reply at 2. 
Said documents include:
5. ANSI Z41 Protective Footwear Standard; 9. Texas State Office of Risk
Management and State Employee Workers Compensation and Risk
Management Division; 10. Rules and Regulations of 1974 International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and Amendments; 11. The Code of
Safety for Cargo Ships Operating in the Caribbean; 13. Unidentified State
Regulatory Agencies Rules and Regulations; and, 18. Seafarers’ Training,
Certification and Watch-keeping Code, Chapter V, Section B-V/1, and
Regulation 8. 
This Court agrees that said authorities were not produced in hard copy.  Under a
Meyers analysis, the undersigned finds that the failure to provide Plaintiff with the
requested authorities in hard copy substantially prejudices Plaintiff and said prejudice
cannot be cured.  Defendant’s deadline for submission of its expert reports was May 16,
2007, at 5:00 p.m.; furthermore, trial is impending.  In addition, Defendant’s failure to
produce said documents was willful.  See, e.g., Velez v. QVC, Inc., No. Civ. A. 00-5582, 2004
WL 1175726 at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. May 25, 2004) (where the court, in excluding portions of a
supplemental expert report, stated, “The Court also finds that plaintiff's late submission of
the report is willful in that the plaintiff knew when the report was due under the Rules .
. . and she failed to comply”).  Accordingly, the undersigned holds that the requested
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 161   Filed: 07/18/07   Page 5 of 7
Jarvis v. Premuda
2005-CV-0077
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)
Page 6
documents were not produced in hard copy, therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to preclude
Captain Geary’s opinions at trial based on these documents is granted.
Plaintiff also seeks a copy of the Charter Party Agreement.  Plaintiff asks this Court
to preclude Captain Geary’s testimony based upon said Agreement, as Plaintiff has not
received a copy of the Agreement from Defendant.  Whereas Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion
by Plaintiff to Obtain Materials, upon which this Court’s Order Regarding Emergency
Motion, dated May 10, 2007, was based, failed to request said document, the undersigned
denies Plaintiff’s motion on this point.
Being thus advised in the premises and upon due consideration thereof,  it is now
hereby ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) (Docket No. 126) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
2.
Plaintiff Caona Jarvis’ Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P.37(b)(2) (Docket No. 126) regarding document request nos.
5, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 18 listed above is GRANTED.  Captain Geary is
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 161   Filed: 07/18/07   Page 6 of 7
Jarvis v. Premuda
2005-CV-0077
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)
Page 7
precluded from offering opinions at trial based on the documents in
question.   
3.
Plaintiff Caona Jarvis’ Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P.37(b)(2) (Docket No. 126) regarding Charter Party
Agreement listed above is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: July 18, 2007   
                                            /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 161   Filed: 07/18/07   Page 7 of 7