1.  This document appears to be the same as Docket Nos. 32 and 33 except that Defendant’s portion of the
stipulation is absent.
2.  Docket Nos. 32 and 33  are identical except for the fact that Docket No. 33 has a two (2)-page Notice to the
Court attached preceding the joint stipulation.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
CARMEN PONCE,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2005-CV-0115
v.
5
5
FOOTLOCKER RETAIL, INC., d/b/a
5
CHAMPS SPORTS,
5
5
Defendant. 5
____________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Sharmane Davis-Brathwaite, Esq.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation Regarding
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant For Complete Responses to Discovery (Docket No.
28), Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant For Complete
1
Responses to Discovery (Docket Nos. 32, 33), and Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s
2
Motion to Compel Defendant For More Complete Supplemental Responses to
Interrogatories (Docket No. 38).
Case: 1:05-cv-00115-LDD   Document #: 48   Filed: 12/27/07   Page 1 of 7
Ponce v. Footlocker Retail, Inc.
2005-CV-0115
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 2
In view of the later, fully executed joint stipulations, the Court finds the Joint
Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant For More Complete
Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 28), filed August 30, 2006, moot.
With regard to the Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Defendant For Complete Responses to Discovery (Docket Nos. 32, 33), the Court makes the
following findings:
Interrogatory No. 3:
Defendant stated that additional time was needed for new
counsel to supplement this request.  The record is void of any
notice of supplementation filed after the filing of the said joint
stipulation.  Consequently, the Court will order Defendant to
supplement its response with the names and addresses of the
store managers.
Interrogatory No. 7:
Defendant stated that additional time was needed for new
counsel to supplement this request.  The record is void of any
notice of supplementation filed after the filing of the said joint
stipulation.  Consequently, the Court will order Defendant to
supplement its response with the last known addresses of Joan
Puponne and Carlos Sanchez.
Case: 1:05-cv-00115-LDD   Document #: 48   Filed: 12/27/07   Page 2 of 7
Ponce v. Footlocker Retail, Inc.
2005-CV-0115
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 3
Interrogatory No. 16:
Defendant stated that additional time was needed for new
counsel to supplement this request.  The record is void of any
notice of supplementation filed after the filing of the said joint
stipulation.  Consequently, the Court will order Defendant to
supplement its response regarding any failure to investigate
complaints, criticisms, etc. with regard to Plaintiff’s
employment.
Interrogatory No. 21:
Defendant stated that additional time was needed for new
counsel to supplement this request.  The record is void of any
notice of supplementation filed after the filing of the said joint
stipulation.  Consequently, the Court will order Defendant to
supplement its response with information answering
subparagraphs a-i for Dawn Moses and Reuben Hernandez.
Interrogatory No. 22:
Defendant stated that additional time was needed for new
counsel to supplement this request.  The record is void of any
notice of supplementation filed after the filing of the said joint
stipulation.  Consequently, the Court will order Defendant to
supplement its response with the identity of persons present at
Case: 1:05-cv-00115-LDD   Document #: 48   Filed: 12/27/07   Page 3 of 7
Ponce v. Footlocker Retail, Inc.
2005-CV-0115
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 4
the staff meeting held by Pedro Fuentes on June 13, 2000, and
the identity of employees with whom Pedro Fuentes had
general communications regarding Plaintiff’s job performance.
Demand For Production No. 6:
Defendant stated that additional time was needed for
new counsel to supplement this request.  The record is
void of any notice of supplementation filed after the
filing of the said joint stipulation.  Consequently, the
Court will order Defendant to supplement its response
with any responsive documents, subject to a
confidentiality agreement.  In addition, the Court will
limit the scope of the documents at issue to those
documents related to the employees’ job duties and
responsibilities and/or performance of those duties and
responsibilities.
Demand For Production No. 7:
Defendant stated that additional time was needed for
new counsel to supplement this request.  The record is
void of any notice of supplementation filed after the
filing of the said joint stipulation.  Consequently, the
Case: 1:05-cv-00115-LDD   Document #: 48   Filed: 12/27/07   Page 4 of 7
Ponce v. Footlocker Retail, Inc.
2005-CV-0115
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 5
Court will order Defendant to supplement its response
with the personnel file of Pedro Fuentes.
Demand For Production Nos. 10 and 15:
Defendant stated that additional time was
needed for new counsel to supplement
this request.  The record is void of any
notice of supplementation filed after the
filing of the said joint stipulation.
Consequently, the Court will order
Defendant to supplement its response
with responsive documents.  However
the Court will limit the period to January
2000 through December 2003.
With regard to the Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Defendant For More Complete Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories (Docket No. 38),
the Court makes the following findings:
Interrogatory No. 2:
Defendant shall supplement with more detailed information
regarding the relationship between Champs Sports and
Footlocker, Inc.
Case: 1:05-cv-00115-LDD   Document #: 48   Filed: 12/27/07   Page 5 of 7
Ponce v. Footlocker Retail, Inc.
2005-CV-0115
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 6
Interrogatory No. 5:
Defendant’s supplemental response, as set forth in the
stipulation, is adequate.  No further supplementation is
required.
Interrogatory No. 6:
Defendant’s response, as supplemented, is adequate.  No
further supplementation is required.
Interrogatory No. 8:
Defendant’s response, as supplements, is adequate.  No further
supplementation is required.
Interrogatory No. 14:
Defendant’s response, as supplemented, is adequate.  No
further supplementation is required.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant For More Complete Responses to
Discovery (Docket No. 28), filed August 30, 2006, is DENIED AS MOOT.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant For Complete Responses to
Discovery (Docket Nos. 32, 33) is GRANTED.
3.
Defendant shall supplement within ten (10) days from the date of entry of
this order, its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 16, 21, and 22 and Demand
For Production Nos. 6-7, 10, and 15, as more fully described hereinabove.
Case: 1:05-cv-00115-LDD   Document #: 48   Filed: 12/27/07   Page 6 of 7
Ponce v. Footlocker Retail, Inc.
2005-CV-0115
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 7
4.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant For More Complete Supplemental
Responses to Interrogatories (Docket No. 38) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
5.
Defendant shall supplement, within ten (10) days from the date of entry of
this order, its response to Interrogatory No. 2, as more fully described
hereinabove.
ENTER:
Dated: December 27, 2007
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00115-LDD   Document #: 48   Filed: 12/27/07   Page 7 of 7