Mark Vitalis, v. Sun Constructors, Inc.

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
IDONA WALLACE 5 1:02-cv-107
5
v. 5
5
KMART CORPORATION 5
__________________________________________5
5
ERROL STANLEY, NIGEL CHARLES, 5 1:03-cv-55
MELVIN NEAL, JOSEPH SONNY, 5
WRANDA DAVIS 5
5
v. 5
5
ST. CROIX BASIC SERVICES, INC., BASIC 5
INDUSTRIES, INC., HOVENSA, L.L.C., and 5
AMERADA HESS CORPORATION 5
__________________________________________5
5
FORREST THOMAS 5 1:03-cv-163
5
v. 5
5
CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS 5
CORP., CENTENNIAL CARIBBEAN 5
HOLDING CORP., and CENTENNIAL 5
USVI OPERATIONS CORP. 5
__________________________________________5
5
MARK VITALIS, 5 1:05-cv-101
5
v. 5
5
SUN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., RICHARD 5
“DOC” LANGNER, and EXCEL GROUP, 5
INC. 5
__________________________________________5
Case: 1:05-cv-00101-WAL-EAH Document #: 653 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 1 of 6

Wallace v. Kmart Corp.
1:02-cv-107
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery
Page 2
5
PATRICE CANTON 5 1:05-cv-143
5
v. 5
5
KMART CORPORATION 5
__________________________________________5
5
GLENFORD RAGGUETTE 5 1:06-cv-173
5
v. 5
5
PREMIER WINES AND SPIRITS, LTD. 5
__________________________________________5
5
TERRANCE ALEXIS 5 1:07-cv-91
5
v. 5
5
HOVENSA, L.L.C., and HESS f/k/a 5
Amerada Hess Corporation 5
__________________________________________5
5
HELEN JAMES-STEELE 5 1:04-CV-123
5
v. 5
5
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 5
__________________________________________5
TO: See attached distribution list
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT
DISCOVERY RELATED TO MOTIONS TO RECUSE AND REQUEST FOR
EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO STRIKE UNTIMELY FILINGS
Case: 1:05-cv-00101-WAL-EAH Document #: 653 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 2 of 6

Wallace v. Kmart Corp.
1:02-cv-107
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery
Page 3
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct
Discovery Related to Motions to Recuse and Request For Expedited Consideration (1:02-cv-
107, Docket No. 290). Defendants Sun Constructors, Inc., Richard “Doc” Langner, and Excel
Group, Inc., and Defendants Centennial Communications Corp., Centennial Caribbean
Holding Corp., and Centennial USVI Operations Corp. filed oppositions to said motion.
Defendant HOVENSA, LLC, moved to join Defendants Centennial Communications Corp.,
Centennial Caribbean Holding Corp., and Centennial USVI Operations Corp.’s opposition
(1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 306) and Defendant Ford Motor Company moved to join both
oppositions (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 308). Plaintiffs filed a reply to Defendants Sun
Constructors, Inc., Richard “Doc” Langner, and Excel Group, Inc.’s opposition and a
Motion to Strike Untimely Filings (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 310) in response to Defendants
Centennial Communications Corp., Centennial Caribbean Holding Corp., and Centennial
USVI Operations Corp.’s opposition.
Having reviewed all the written submissions and upon due consideration thereof,
the Court finds that the discovery sought by Plaintiffs is not warranted. Despite Plaintiffs’
attempt to distinguish the current situation presented before the Court from that presented
to this Court in United States v. Roebuck, 271 F. Supp. 2d 712 (D.V.I. 2003), with regard to
deposing Judge Savage, the Court finds Roebuck to be directly on point. The questions the
Case: 1:05-cv-00101-WAL-EAH Document #: 653 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 3 of 6

Wallace v. Kmart Corp.
1:02-cv-107
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery
Page 4
defendant proposed for Judge Moore in Roebuck are virtually indistinguishable from the
“factual” inquiry to which Plaintiffs seek to subject Judge Savage in the matters at bar. As
the Roebuck court cautioned, “Simply putting the word ‘factually’ before a request for
information does not make that information discoverable under the case law.” Id. at 721.
Like the Roebuck court found with respect to Judge Moore, the Court, here, finds that Judge
Savage
cannot be compelled to answer the questions proposed by [Plaintiffs] as the
information sought falls directly within the prohibition established by
Morgan and its progeny . . . . The law is clear that a judge is not required to
explain any of his decisions nor to divulge reasons which may have motivated his
actions or opinion.” Edwards, 39 F. Supp. 2d at 706.
Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Consequently, the Court will deny1
Plaintiffs’ request to depose Judge Savage. In addition, the Court finds that the other
proposed depositions are unnecessary, cumulative, and duplicative in view of the
statements, affidavits, and other documents filed in support of Plaintiffs’ motions to recuse.
1. Plaintiffs heavily rely upon Ciarlone v. City of Reading, 263 F.R.D. 198 (E.D. Pa. 2009). However, the facts
of Ciarlone are distinguishable from the matters at bar, where the judge whose deposition was sought in
Ciarlone was not embroiled in a disqualification issue. Even if Ciarlone and the Frankenthal test (as articulated
in United States v. Roth, 332 F. Supp. 2d 565, 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)) that the Ciarlone court adopted were
applicable here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail the second prong of the test. Because a judge is not
required to “divulge reasons which may have motivated his actions or opinion,” United States v. Edwards, 39
F. Supp. 2d 692, 706 (M .D. La. 1999) (cited in Roebuck, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 721), the “factual knowledge”
Plaintiffs claim Judge Savage possesses in not “highly pertinent to the jury’s task.” Ciarlone, 263 F.R.D. at 205.
Case: 1:05-cv-00101-WAL-EAH Document #: 653 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 4 of 6

Wallace v. Kmart Corp.
1:02-cv-107
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery
Page 5
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery Related to Motions to
Recuse and Request For Expedited Consideration (1:02-cv-107, Docket No.
290) is DENIED.
2. Defendant HOVENSA, LLC’s Joinder in Centennial’s Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Conduct Discovery Related to the Recusal
Motion (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 306) is GRANTED.
3. Defendant Ford Motor Company’s joinder in Sun Constructors, Inc’s
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conduct Discovery Related to the Recusal
Motion and Centennial’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Conduct
Discovery Related to the Recusal Motion (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 308) is
GRANTED.
4. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Untimely Filings (1:02-cv-107, Docket No. 310) is
DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: August 25, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr.
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00101-WAL-EAH Document #: 653 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 5 of 6

Wallace v. Kmart Corp.
1:02-cv-107
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Discovery
Page 6
ECF: Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Eugenio W.A. Geigel-Simounet, Esq.
George H. Logan, Esq.
Linda J. Blair, Esq.
Simone R.D. Francis, Esq.
David J. Cattie, Esq.
Anna H. Paiewonsky, Esq.
Stephanie L. Adler, Esq.
Daryl C. Barnes, Esq.
Case: 1:05-cv-00101-WAL-EAH Document #: 653 Filed: 08/25/10 Page 6 of 6