DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
JUAN MENDEZ, RENE VARGAS, FRANK
5
REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ, and JAIME
5
GARCIA,
5
2002-CV-0169
5
Plaintiffs,
5
v.
5
5
HOVENSA, L.L.C.,
5
5
Defendant.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Onik’a Gilliam, Esq.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANT FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court for consideration upon remand from the District
Judge.  Originally, the undersigned struck Plaintiffs’ Motion For Sanctions Against
Defendant For Failure to Properly Appear For Deposition (Docket No. 236) for failure to
comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (Docket No. 270).  Plaintiffs appealed, and
the District Judge reversed said order and remanded for a ruling upon the merits (Docket
No. 358).
Although not forthrightly stated within said motion, Plaintiffs’ said motion
ostensibly seeks sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, as Plaintiffs state, “If the
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 363   Filed: 03/04/08   Page 1 of 3
Mendez v. HOVENSA, L.L.C
2002-CV-0169
Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant For Failure to Properly Appear For
Deposition
Page 2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) provides for sanctions due to “failure of party to attend at own deposition . . .
1
.”
No copy of the transcript of the deposition of Richard Layton was provided.  Consequently, the
2
Court was unable to review the testimony and make a determination regarding whether Plaintiffs’ allegations
were supported thereby.
corporation provides witnesses who cannot answer questions listed in the notice of the
deposition, then the corporation . . . is subject to the same sanctions as those allowed for
the failure to appear at a deposition . . . .  Thus, the sanctions are the same as allowed under
Rule 37 defendant [sic].”  Motion at 2 (citations omitted).1
Plaintiffs contend that because Defendant’s 30(b)(6) designees were unable to
provide what they consider adequate responses to certain specific questions that the
deponents were unprepared to the point of amounting to non-appearance.  See, e.g., Black
Horse Lane Ass’n, L.P. v. Dow Chemical Corp., 228 F.3d 275, 303 (3d Cir. 2000) ( and the cases
cited therein).  Defendant counters that it produced three individuals who testified
extensively as to subjects within their scope of knowledge for a total of over five hours.
Plaintiffs attached copies of  the transcripts of Richard Gauthe’s and Llewellyn
Reed’s depositions to their said motion.  A review of those transcripts reveal cooperative
2
deponents who responded with knowledge of the general area of inquiry.  As Defendant
explains, many of Plaintiffs’ allegations of unpreparedness stem from the fact that the
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 363   Filed: 03/04/08   Page 2 of 3
Mendez v. HOVENSA, L.L.C
2002-CV-0169
Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion For Sanctions Against Defendant For Failure to Properly Appear For
Deposition
Page 3
information sought is either not within the control of Defendant or non-existent, i.e.,
questions for which there is no answer.  Opposition at 5.
Having thus considered the matter, the Court finds that while Defendant may have
been unable to testify fully on every single topic set forth in Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) notice, such
failure was not tantamount to a failure to appear.  In addition, Plaintiffs have not shown
either bad faith or an intent to obstruct discovery on the part of Defendant.  Belmont
Holdings Corp. v. Unicare Life & Health Ins. Co., No. Civ. A. 98-2365, 2000 WL 1920039 (E.D.
Pa. December 1, 2000) (citing United States v. Massachusetts Indus. Fin. Agency, 162 F.R.D.
410, 412 (D. Mass. 1995)).  Thus, the Court finds that sanctions are not warranted.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion For Sanctions Against
Defendant For Failure to Properly Appear For Deposition (Docket No. 236) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: March 4, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 363   Filed: 03/04/08   Page 3 of 3