DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
DANIEL GIANNINI,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2005-CV-0096
v.
5
5
Vessel HARBOR CAT a/k/a “THE OCEAN
5
CLUB” her engines, tackle, apparel, gear, etc., 5
and MILEMARK, INC.,
5
5
Defendants.
5
__________________________________________5
TO: 
Scot F. McChain, Esq.
Michael Fitzsimmons, Esq.
E. Geoffrey Wolfe, Esq.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
REGARDING DEFENDANT HARBOR CAT’S SECOND REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION [sic] AND DEFENDANT MILEMARK, INC.’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Protective Order
Regarding Defendant Harbor Cat’s Second Request For Admission [sic] (Docket No. 125)
and Defendant Milemark, Inc.’s Motion For Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37
(Docket No. 136).
Plaintiff’s Motion For Protective Order concerns six (6) requests for admission that
were propounded to Plaintiff regarding a specific document that Plaintiff presented to the
Case: 1:05-cv-00096-CVG-GWC   Document #: 156   Filed: 09/17/07   Page 1 of 3
Giannini v. Vessel Harbor Cat
2006-CV-0096
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion For Protective Order and Defendant Milemark, Inc.’s Motion For
Sanctions
Page 2
Court during a hearing held July 3, 2007.  Defendant Vessel Harbor Cat filed a copy of the
requests as an attachment to its response to said motion.  Having reviewed the requests for
admission at issue, the Court finds that they are not burdensome, excessive, or cumulative.
Plaintiff argues that the requests “can be answered best through deposition,”  Motion at
1.  Even if the requests are proper subjects for deposition questioning, that fact does render
the requests impermissible.  Consequently, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for
protective order.
With regard to Defendant Milemark, Inc.’s motion for sanctions, the Court finds that
Plaintiff has complied with the discovery order at issue and will execute the other
authorizations identified in Defendant’s said motion upon being supplied with a copy of
the same.  Therefore, the Court finds that sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 are not
warranted.
Despite this instance where the Court chose to rule upon the foregoing motions, the
Court reminds the parties and their counsel that they are required to comply with the
requirements of LRCi 37 regarding any discovery motion.  LRCi 37.1 explicitly states,
“Prior to the filing of any motion relating to discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-37,
counsel for the parties shall confer in a good faith effort to eliminate the necessity for
Case: 1:05-cv-00096-CVG-GWC   Document #: 156   Filed: 09/17/07   Page 2 of 3
Giannini v. Vessel Harbor Cat
2006-CV-0096
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion For Protective Order and Defendant Milemark, Inc.’s Motion For
Sanctions
Page 3
hearing the motion or to eliminate as many of the disputes as possible.”  LRCi 37.1.
Subparagraph 37.2 continues, “If counsel are unable to settle their differences, they shall
formulate a written stipulation.”  LRCi 37.2.  Moreover, the “stipulation must be set forth
in one document signed by both counsel.”  LRCi 37.2(a).  In the present matter, Plaintiff
and said Defendant filed bare motions, not a joint stipulation.  The Court hereby gives
notice that all future failure to follow correct procedure will result in the striking of any
procedurally-deficient motion.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion For Protective Order Regarding Defendant Harbor Cat’s
Second Request For Admission [sic] (Docket No. 125) is DENIED.
2.
Defendant Milemark, Inc.’s Motion  For Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37 (Docket No. 136) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: September 17, 2007
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00096-CVG-GWC   Document #: 156   Filed: 09/17/07   Page 3 of 3