DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
TIA SMITH,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2007-CV-0014
v.
5
5
SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., and
5
MATTHEW REILLY,
5
5
Defendants.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Sharmane Davis-Brathwaite, Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Defendant SGS [to] Supplement Its Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 57).  Said
Defendant filed an opposition to said motion.  The time for filing a reply has expired.
Plaintiff claims that a meet and confer was held on July 2, 2008, and that said
Defendant agreed to supplement by July 18, 2008, but failed to do so.  Said Defendant
asserts that it has supplemented certain responses and that the motion is without merit
with regard to other discovery identified by Plaintiff.
The Court notes that the parties failed to submit a joint stipulation pursuant LRCi
37.2(a).  However, because the matter has been briefed, in the interest of judicial economy,
Case: 1:07-cv-00014-JEJ-GWC   Document #: 70   Filed: 10/10/08   Page 1 of 3
Smith v. SGS North America, Inc.
2007-CV-014
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 2
the Court will rule upon the papers which could be considered filed consistent with LRCi
37.2(b).  As the Court has stated in previous matters, however, all future discovery motions
that fail to comply with the requirements of LRCi 37.2(a) will not be considered pursuant
to LRCi 37.2(c).
With regard to the specific discovery requests at issue, the Court makes the
following findings and conclusions:
Interrogatory No. 3:
Said Defendant represents that it already has supplemented its
response.  No further supplementation is necessary.
Interrogatory No. 11:
Said Defendant objected to this interrogatory as overly broad,
unduly burdensome, not limited in time and scope, and
irrelevant.  The Court sustains said Defendant’s objections.  No
further response is necessary.
Interrogatory No. 13:
Said Defendant represents that it already has supplemented its
response.  No further supplementation is necessary.
Demand For Production No. 5:
Said Defendant claims that it has not withheld any
responsive documents.  The Court finds that said
Defendant’s response is adequate.  No further response
is necessary.
Case: 1:07-cv-00014-JEJ-GWC   Document #: 70   Filed: 10/10/08   Page 2 of 3
Smith v. SGS North America, Inc.
2007-CV-014
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 3
Demand For Production No. 6:
Said Defendant claims that it has not withheld any
responsive documents.  The Court finds that said
Defendant’s response is adequate.  No further response
is necessary.
Demand For Production No. 11: Said Defendant objected to this interrogatory as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, not limited in time and
scope, and irrelevant.  The Court sustains said
Defendant’s objections.  No further response is
necessary.
Demand For Production Nos. 15-20:
Said Defendant claims that it has not withheld
any responsive documents.  The Court finds that
said Defendant’s response is adequate. No
further response is necessary.
Therefore, it is now hereby ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant SGS
[to] Supplement Its Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 57) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: October 10, 2008
                                /s/                                    
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:07-cv-00014-JEJ-GWC   Document #: 70   Filed: 10/10/08   Page 3 of 3