DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
CATHERINE SABIN,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2002-CV-0080
v.
5
5
ST. CROIX BASIC SERVICES, UNITED
5
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, UNITED
5
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
5
CHAPTER 8248
5
5
Defendants.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Bernard C. Pattie, Esq.
Michael J. Sanford, Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant
to Provide Supplemental Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 106).  Defendants United
Steelworkers of America (USWA) and United Steel Workers of America, Local Chapter
8248, filed a response thereto.
Having reviewed the documents filed by the said parties, the Court makes the
following findings:
Case: 1:02-cv-00080-TJS   Document #: 111   Filed: 05/02/08   Page 1 of 5
Sabin v. St. Croix Basic Services
2002-CV-0080
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 2
Demand For Production No. 1:
Said Defendants state that they have produced all
responsive documents.  Defendants’ response is
adequate.  Defendants need not supplement.
Demand For Production No. 2:
Said Defendants state that they have produced all
responsive documents.  Defendants’ response is
adequate.  Defendants need not supplement.
Demand For Production No. 4:
Said Defendants state that they have produced all
responsive documents.  Defendants’ response is
adequate.  Defendants need not supplement.
Demand For Production No. 5:
The Court sustains Defendants’ objections.  Defendants
need not respond.
Demand For Production No. 7:
Said Defendants state that no documents satisfy this
request.  The Court cannot order the production of
documents that do not exist.  Consequently,
Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants need not
supplement.
Demand For Production No. 9:
The Court sustains Defendants’ objections.  Defendants
need not respond.
Case: 1:02-cv-00080-TJS   Document #: 111   Filed: 05/02/08   Page 2 of 5
Sabin v. St. Croix Basic Services
2002-CV-0080
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 3
Demand For Production Nos. 12 and 13:
The Court sustains Defendants’
objections.  Defendants need not respond.
Demand For Production No. 14:
Said Defendants state that they are no longer in
possession of documents regarding union dues paid by
Plaintiff as a result of their document retention policy
and the passage of time.  The Court cannot order
production of documents not within Defendants’
custody or control.  Consequently, Defendants’
response is adequate.  Defendants’ need not
supplement.
Demand For Production No. 15-20:
Said Defendants state that they have produced
the Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Based
upon such representation, the Court finds that
Defendants have adequately responded to this
interrogatory.  Plaintiff may renew her motion if
she disputes this finding.
Case: 1:02-cv-00080-TJS   Document #: 111   Filed: 05/02/08   Page 3 of 5
Sabin v. St. Croix Basic Services
2002-CV-0080
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 4
Demand For Production No. 21:
Said Defendants state that they have produced all
responsive documents.  Defendants’ response is
adequate.  Defendants need not supplement.
Demand For Production No. 23:
The Court sustains Defendants’ objections.  Defendants
need not respond.
Interrogatory No. 9:
The Court sustains Defendants’ objections.  Defendants need
not respond.
Interrogatory No. 10:
Said Defendants state that they have produced all responsive
documents.  Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants
need not supplement further.
Interrogatory No. 11:
Said Defendants state that they have provided all responsive
information.  Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants
need not supplement further.
Interrogatory No. 13:
Said Defendants state that they have provided all responsive
information.  Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants
need not supplement further.
Case: 1:02-cv-00080-TJS   Document #: 111   Filed: 05/02/08   Page 4 of 5
Sabin v. St. Croix Basic Services
2002-CV-0080
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 5
Interrogatory No. 14:
Said Defendants state that they have provided all responsive
information.  Defendants’ response is adequate.  Defendants
need not supplement further.
Interrogatory Nos. 15-20:
The Court sustains Defendants’ objections.  Defendants need
not respond.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant
to Provide Supplemental Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 106) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: May 2, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:02-cv-00080-TJS   Document #: 111   Filed: 05/02/08   Page 5 of 5