DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
OLANREWAJU A. IDEWU,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2008-CV-0057
v.
5
5
KEVIN SEALEY,
5
5
Defendant.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Scot F. McChain, Esq.
Maxwell D. McIntosh, Esq.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff Olanrewaju A. Idewu’s Motion
to Compel Production of Defendant Kevin J. Sealey’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(A)(1)(a) Disclosures
(Docket No. 11).  This order is issued without necessity of response.
Plaintiff states that his said motion is filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(A).  
Motion at 1.  The motion then notes that this rule is “[m]ade applicable to the Superior
Court of the Virgin Islands.”  Motion at 1 n.1.  However, this matter is pending in the
District Court of the Virgin Islands and, as such, is governed by this Court’s Local Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Case: 1:08-cv-00057-RLF-GWC   Document #: 12   Filed: 02/06/09   Page 1 of 3
Idewu v. Sealey
2008-CV-0057
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 2
While the amendments to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37 still are relatively new,
all members of the bar are required to know and adhere to the procedures detailed therein. 
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 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 hearing the motion or to eliminate as
many of the disputes as possible.”  LRCi 37.1.  As the instant motion is brought pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and involves a discovery dispute, it falls within the purview of LRCi
37.  Rule 37.2 continues, “If counsel are unable to resolve all of their differences, they shall
formulate and sign a written stipulation to that effect, expressly certifying their compliance
with LRCi 37.1.”  LRCi 37.2.
In the present matter, Defendant filed a bare motion, not a joint stipulation.  Rule
37.2(c) specifically provides:
The Court will not consider any discovery motion in the absence of (1) the
signed stipulation and certification required by LRCi 37.2(a), or (2) a
declaration from counsel for the moving party establishing that opposing
counsel:
(1)
failed to confer in a timely manner after receipt of a letter
requesting a conference under LRCi 37.1; or
(2)
refused to sign the stipulation and certification required by
LRCi 37.2(a).
Case: 1:08-cv-00057-RLF-GWC   Document #: 12   Filed: 02/06/09   Page 2 of 3
Idewu v. Sealey
2008-CV-0057
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Page 3
LRCi 37.2(c).
Thus, in the absence of a stipulation and a declaration from counsel for Plaintiff
establishing the failure of opposing counsel to meet and confer after receiving a letter as
described in LRCi 37.1 or refusal to sign the stipulation, this Court will not consider
Plaintiff’s said motion and deny the same without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Docket No. 11)
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ENTER:
Dated: February 6, 2009
/s/ George W. Cannon, Jr.                           
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:08-cv-00057-RLF-GWC   Document #: 12   Filed: 02/06/09   Page 3 of 3