DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
HAROLD FIGUEROA; JOSE FIGUEROA; 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
BONNEVILE CONTRACTING AND 
TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.; 
BONNEVILLE GROUP VIRGIN ISLANDS 
CORPORATION; VIRGIN ISLANDS 
TELEPHONE CORP., 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Criminal No. 2014-78 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)  
) 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Andrew R. Duffy 
Jeffrey P. Goodman 
Robert J. Mongeluzzi 
Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C. 
Philadelphia, PA 
Ryan W. Greene 
St. Thomas, USVI 
Michael A. Budner 
XXX 
 
For the Plaintiffs, 
 
 
Andrew C. Simpson 
Emily A. Shoup 
Law Offices of Andrew Simpson 
Christiansted, USVI 
For Bonneville Contracting and Technology Group, Inc.; and 
Bonneville Group Virgin Islands Corporation 
 
Ryan C. Meade 
Quintairo, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. 
Miami, FL 
Douglas L. Capdeville 
Melissa Pauline Ortiz 
Law Office of Douglas L. Capdeville 
Christiansted, USVI  
 
For Virgin Islands Telephone Corp., 
 
Case: 3:14-cv-00078-CVG-RM   Document #: 280   Filed: 08/02/16   Page 1 of 3
Figueroa et al. v. Bonneville Contracting et al. 
Civ. No. 14-78 
Page 2 
 
 
ORDER1 
 
Before the Court is the Objection of Bonneville Contracting 
and Technology Group, Inc.; and Bonneville Group Virgin Islands 
Corporation (collectively the “Bonneville Defendants”) to a July 
8, 2016, order (the “disclosure order”) of the Magistrate 
ordering the disclosure of surveillance footage taken by the 
Bonneville Defendants of Harold Figueroa.  In a July 20, 2016, 
order, the Court stayed the disclosure order pending resolution 
of the Objection.  
 
Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure and Rule 72.1(a)(1) of the Local Rules of Civil 
Procedure, a party may seek review of a magistrate judge's 
nondispositive order by filing objections to the order with this 
Court within ten days after being served with a copy of the 
order. Harrison v. Bornn, Bornn & Handy, 200 F.R.D. 509, 513 
(D.V.I.2001). In reviewing a magistrate judge's order, a 
district court will modify or vacate any portion of the 
magistrate judge's order that is found to be “clearly erroneous 
or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Anthony ex 
rel. Lewis v. Abbott, 289 F. Supp. 2d 667, 671 (D.V.I. 2003). A 
magistrate judge's order will be affirmed unless the Court is 
                     
1 The Court will issue a memorandum opinion outlining its reasons at a later 
date. 
Case: 3:14-cv-00078-CVG-RM   Document #: 280   Filed: 08/02/16   Page 2 of 3
Figueroa et al. v. Bonneville Contracting et al. 
Civ. No. 14-78 
Page 3 
 
left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 
been committed.” Nicholas v. Wyndham Intern., Inc., 218 F.R.D. 
122, 123 (D.V.I. 2003)(citing Harrison, 200 F .R.D. at 513.). 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that the July 20, 2016, order shall be VACATED at 
12:00 PM on August 3, 2016, unless, no later than 12:00 PM on 
August 3, 2016, the Bonneville Defendants notify the Court, 
through an ECF filing, that they do not intend to use the 
surveillance footage in Court. 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
  CURTIS V. GÓMEZ 
  District Judge 
 
Case: 3:14-cv-00078-CVG-RM   Document #: 280   Filed: 08/02/16   Page 3 of 3