DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
JUAN MENDEZ, JUAN MORALES,
5
RENE VARGAS, FRANK ORTIZ,
5
REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ, JAIME,
5
GARCIA and PEDRO CARPIO,
5
5
Plaintiffs,
5
2002-CV-0169
v.
5
5
HOVENSA, LLC,
5
5
Defendant.
5
__________________________________________5
TO: 
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Onik’a Gilliam, Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WILLIAM GEORGE TO
ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel William
George to Answer Deposition Questions (Docket No. 218).  Defendant filed an opposition,
to which Plaintiffs filed a reply.
Plaintiffs have submitted a motion to compel discovery.  According to Local Rule
37.2(d), “the Court will not consider any discovery motion in the absence of a joint
stipulation or a declaration from counsel for the moving party establishing that opposing
counsel” thwarted the filing of a joint stipulation.  LRCi 37.2(d).  Plaintiffs’ motion is not
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 242   Filed: 07/18/07   Page 1 of 3
Mendez v. HOVENSA, LLC
2002-CV-0169
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel William George to Answer Deposition Questions
Page 2
accompanied by a joint stipulation.  As Plaintiffs are the moving party, Plaintiffs’ motion
may be accompanied, in lieu of a joint stipulation, by a declaration from Plaintiffs’ counsel
that opposing counsel thwarted the filing of a joint stipulation.
Although Plaintiffs’ discovery motion has been submitted without either a joint
stipulation or a declaration from counsel establishing that opposing counsel thwarted the
filing of a joint stipulation, the Court will consider the motion in light of the approaching
trial date.
Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s expert, William George, to appear in St. Croix
and respond to a supposedly unanswered deposition question.  In their motion, Plaintiffs
challenge Defense counsel’s direction to Defendant’s expert not to answer the following
question: “Did you provide any questions to Attorney Warren or any of his associates in
examining Dr. Bernard yesterday?”  Deposition of William J. George, Ph.D. at p. 51.
Despite defense counsel’s direction not to answer, Plaintiffs’ counsel renewed the question:
“Did you provide Attorney Warren with a list of questions in preparation for his
examination of Dr. Bernard?”  Id. at p. 52.  Defendant’s expert responded: “I don’t
remember who he examined, but I know I spoke with him on the phone.  I don’t recall
what the questions were.”  Id.  Thus, Defendant’s expert answered Plaintiffs’ counsel’s
question, despite defense counsel’s direction not to answer.
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 242   Filed: 07/18/07   Page 2 of 3
Mendez v. HOVENSA, LLC
2002-CV-0169
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel William George to Answer Deposition Questions
Page 3
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel William
George to Answer Deposition Questions (Docket No. 218) is DENIED AS MOOT.
ENTER:
Dated: July 18, 2007
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 242   Filed: 07/18/07   Page 3 of 3