Loren Kokot v. St. John Front Desk, LLC d/b/a Wharfside Watersports and Michael Ramsey, and Chase/ Herro Chase v. St. John Front Desk, LLC d/b/a Wharfside Watersports and Michael Ramsey

2023 VI Super 3U

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

LOREN KOKOT )

)

Plaintiff ) Case No ST 2020 CV 00153 vs )

)

ST JOHN FRONT DESK LLC d/b/a WHARFSIDE ) WATERSPORTS and MICHAEL RAMSEY and ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES CHASE HERRO ) and PERSONAL INJURY )

Defendants )

)

CHASE HERRO )

)

Crossclaim Plaintiff, )

V5 )

)

ST JOHN FRONT DESK LLC d/b/a WHARFSIDE ) WATERSPORTS and MICHAEL RAMSEY )

)

Crossclaim Dclendants )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintifi Loren Kokot s ( Kokot ) Motion to Compcl Defendant Chase Hem) to Provide Complete Responses to Discovery and For Sanctions filed on June 17 2022 ( Motion ) Also before the Court is Defendant Chase Herro s ( Herro ) Opposition to Motion filed on July 1 l 2022 ( Opposition ) Kokot filed a Reply to Opposition on July 17 2022 BACKGROUND

Kokot alleges that, on June 15, 2019, she sustained injuries while aboard the m/v Clickbait ( Cliekbait ) when it hit a wave head on and Kokot was sent into the air and hurt upon landing

Koltot \ St John FrontDesA LLC 61 u! Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U Case No ST 2020 CV 0015} Memorandum Optnion Plainttft‘: Motton to Lompel (Heme) Page 2 at 16

Kokot s brother in law had made the arrangements through Justin Banoshl, to rent two vessels on that same June 15 Kokot brought this action against Defendants St John Front Desk, LLC d/b/a Wharfside Watersports ( Whartside ) Michael Ramsey ( Ramsey ) and Herro tor negligent conduct and negligent entrustment Kokot s Complaint2 alleges that Herro was owner of the vessel, Clickbait and the party responsible fut injuries stemming from in negligent operation; that Wharfside was in the business of chattering motor Vessels for day excutsions and held itself out as the owner and operator of various vessels including Cliekbait and that Ramsey was the captain of Cliekbait Defendant Harm filed crossclaims against Wharfsidc and Ramsey tor contribution and indemnity Kokot served Hem) the first set of interrogatories and requests for production on March 3, 2022 Thus April 2 2022 was Hem) s deadline to file responses to those discovery requests See V I R Civ P 33(1)) and 34(1)) (imposing a thirty day deadline from the date at service to respond) Herro did not meet this deadline and on April 12 2022, asked Kokot tor an extension through April 29 2022 which Kokot granted Nevertheless, Hem) also did not meet the extended deadline and, ultimately, filed his responses on May 5, 2022 3

' Though Banosh ts not a named defendant In this action Kokot alleges that he is a prtncipal 01 Defendant Wharfstde and that Kokot provtded the quotes for the vessels Banosh is aleo referenced in several of Kukot’e request: for discovery 7 Kokot S Complamt was filed on March 12 2020 3 Ilene s reeponsee included a statement at General Objeetions that state the tollowtng IlERRO objects to these dtscovery requests to the extent thwt they request tnfonnanon that In not proportional to the needs of the ease considering the importance ofthe iasuec at stake in the amen the amount in Lontroversy the pames relattve access to relevant infonnatton the parties resource: the importance of the diacovery tn resolvmg the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the plopoaed discovery outweigh he likely benefit HERRO also objecte to any discovery request that seeks to requeat information that would he subject to protection of any recognized ptmtege such as the attomey client privilege and/or Constituttonal protections To the extent that the Plainttff does not limit the discovery sought to a reawnable time period HERRO will prmide disLovery responses for a period of ten (10)

years prior to the act: alleged m the Complamt To the extent that Plamtiff (1er not define word: or phrases, the definition as given by the Mtnam Webster dtcttonary will be utilized

KOKOH St John Flam Desk [LC cl (1] Cite a: 2023 VI Super 3U Che No ST 2020 CV 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plamtlft 5 Motion to Compel (Ilene) Page 3 of 16

Kokot immediately sent Hcrro a letter pursuant to Rule 37 1(1)) seeking supplementary teaponses to the requested discovely (‘ Rule 37 1 letter ’) A Hem) responded to the Objections by letter and the parties met and conferred on May 9 2022 Kokot states Hem) agreed to supplement the insufficient respomes by May 23 2022 but he did not As such throughout the Motion 1(0th maintains Herro has waived any objections to the interrogatories The Motion lastly asserts Kukot notified Hem) that a motion to compel would be filed on June I 2022 it the responses were not Supplemented before then On May 31 2022 Hem) responded that he would not have any additional information by June 1 maintained he had not waived objections, that he had answeled all dieeovery requests, and he undelstood his obligation to supplcmcntpursuantto VI R Civ P 26(e)

Kokot now moves this Court, pursuant to V I R Civ P 37 to compel Hcrm to provide complete responses to discovery and for sanctions DISCUSSION

Under the laws of the Virgin Islands, 3 party that fails to produce documents or answer interrogatmies, by providing evasive or incomplete responses during discovery, may be compelled by court order to supplement her responses VI R Civ P 37 The scope of discovety, unless limited by the court, encompasses ‘ any nonprivileged matter [] relevant to any party‘s claim or defense, and evidence does not have to be admissible evidence to be discoverable V I R Civ P 26(b)

“W R Cw P 37 l(b)maudale§Ihat“[t]he partyrequeatinglcaolution Ufa discovery dispute shallaene a letter on other counsel Identifying each lune and/or discovery request in dispute, Mating briefly the moving party'a pmition wuh respect to each (and plmiding any legal authority), and Specifying the terms ofthe dummy order m be sought

Kola)“ S/ John Hunt DLAA LLC (,1 {ll Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U (.ase No §T 2020 CV 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plaintitt 5 Motion to Compel (Hone) Page 4 of 15

Whether nonprivilegcd information is diseuverahle is solely determined by considering its relevance to the matter Donastorg V Walker, 2019 VI Super 96U, 111 1 and Cruz v Vugm leands Water and Pam erAuthmtty 2020 VI Super SU 112 (eitingl‘mn v Adams Super Ct Civ N0 ST 16 CV 752 2017 WL 5957669 at *3 (V I Super Ct Nov 28 2017) (unpub1ished)) And evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendenLy to make a fact more or less probable than it w0u1d be without the evidence, and (b) the fact is Ofconsequcnce in determining the action “ V I R Evid 401 Further, under Rule 37, a court may order the responding party to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by the movant in the making ofa motion to compel for violating Rules 33 and 34 V I R Civ P 37(a)(5)' Christan! \ Pedenw 2021 VI Super 73U 114 Berkeley 1 Berkeley

2021 v1 Super 22p 1111 Kokot makes the alignment that Hem) waived any objections to the discovery demands as

a matter nflaw pursuant to V I R Ci\ P 33(b)(1)(B)(4) because his responses were late Kokot further acknowledges the slew of objections that Herro made in his responses but argues that, even iftimely made, they are meritless Herro’s Opposition counteis that his objections were not waived and that Kokot continues to pursue claims against an inconect party, arguing that Home has disclosed and made known that Cliekbait was owned by Sunsation at 2111 times material hereto The Opposition continues that Kokot ‘ obstinater refuses to pursue her claims against the correct party”, refusing to amend her Complaint to pursue the proper patty Hem) a1so argues that his discovery responses are complete and compliant with Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure Hem) further argues that some ofthe requests tor information

KnAm 1 51 Julm From D251 LLC 61 11/ Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U Case No ST 2020 CV 0015] Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff: Motion to Compel (Herro) Page 5 0f 16

and documents, dating hack to 2017, are overburdemome since the incident giving rise to Kokot‘s injuries did not occur until June 15 2019 and thus only that date is pertinent Kokot counterargues that the purpose of discovery i: to obtain evidence to either support or challenge a party’s claims or defenses, and thus it is the very reason she is entitled to the requested discovery in part to test Harm 5 claims that he is not the right pany And even it Herro is not the coneLt party, Kokot maintains that it does not alleviate Herro’s obligation to provide answexs to discovery, and that he! right to obtain information about Clickbait i§ not limited to the date of the incident I First Set of lnterrogatories Kokot moves the Court to compel Hem: to supplement his responses to Interrogatory Nos 4 9 10 14, and 15 Pursuant to Rule 33 a movant may serve interrogatories to a lesponding party whO then must serve their answers within thirty days afiex being served with the interrogatories V I R Civ P 33 The Court will examine the individual interrogatories and the existing responses to detennine if they are deficient a) Intenogatory N0 4

Interrogatory No 4 and Herro’s response, respectively, state

Please explain, in detail, how St John Front Desk, LLC d/b/a Wharfside Watersports, Justin Bartosh, and/or Michael Ramsey came into possession of m/v Clickbait such that the Vessel was being operated for charter in 201‘)

HERRO’S RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO states the vessel was in the custody Oflustin Banosh and Michael Ramsey while Sunsation Holdings, LLC was arranging for the vessel to moved (sic) from tho USVI Sunsation Holdings LLC did not authorize the vessel to be chartered during this time

Kuhn \ S! John From Desk LLC L! a! Cite as 2023 V15uper3U Case No ST 2020 CV 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Compel (Herro) Page 6 0t 16

Kokot argues that Hem) a response is insufficient because Hem: did not answer in detail how Banosh and/or Ramsey came into the possession of Clickbait, only why (emphasis in the original) 5 Hem) 5 response points out that in the Meritum Webvter DlCthl’llH’y, “how ‘ is defined as “for what reason ” Hem) maintains his answer is complete and states that Sunsation came into existence on February 6, 2017 Koknt argues she is entitled to know how Ramsey and/or Banosh came into possession of Clickbait, how and when the keys to Clickbait were turned over to - men, and by whom Kokot argues that Hem) relied upon Webste; y secondary definition of‘ how”, not the principal definition ofhow, which is “in what way or manner ’

The Coun finds that Herro s response is not Lomplete The Court finds that the infomation requested is discoverable because it is ielevant to Kokot’s negligent entrustment claim Harm’s response, that Banosh and Ramsey were in possession of Clickbait, while Sunsation aITanged fox Clickbait to be moved, does not answer how Banosh and Ramsey Lame into possession, and, thus, it is incomplete As a result, the Court will compel Helm to supplement his response to 1nteir0gatory No 4 b) Interrogatory N0 9 and Interrogatory No 10 Intenogatory Nos 9 and 10, and Herm’s responses, respectively, state

lnterrogatory 9 Please provide the current physical location of m/v Clickbait (if the name of the vessel has changed since the date of the incident which formed the basis of this lawsuit, please provide the new name ofthe vessel and its current physical location)

RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Intloduction Reservation of Rights and General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any uhjections HERRO

5 Kokot also argues that the claim that Sunsdtlun wa: anangmg for the \essel to be moved 1: contradicted by the document: proVided in discovery showing that the removal of‘ Clickbait from the territory was done by Harm in 1H5 name on his own behalf not for Simsatmn and in an affidat it dated February 21 2020 Heno identified himself as owner of the Sunsation vessel and that he bought the Vessel in May 2016 Kokol also attempted to argue DPNR record: Support thi: statement but the reterenced exhibit doe: not show a DPNR record

Kola)“ 51 John Flam DLAI‘ LLC et 11/ Cite as "023 VI SuperlU Case No ST 2020 CV 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Comps] (Herm) Page 7 of 15

States Home objects to this interrogatory as seeking information that is not related to the claims or defenses of any party Plaintiff is improperly seeking this intormation in order to attempt to arrest the vessel See Kokot 1 St John Front Desk LLC 3 20 cv 25

Interrogatory 10 Please state whether the m/v Clickbait is generally kept in a marina, on a mooring on “on the hard” and please provide the precise location Where the vessel is generally kept overnight

RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO states H0110 objects to this interrogatory as seeking information that is not related to the claims 0r defenses of any party' Plaintitt is improperly seeking this intnnnation in order to attempt to attest the vessel Sec Kokot v St John F: (mt Desk LLC 3 20 CV 25

Kokot argues that Hem: 3 late responses to the interrogatories operate as a waiver of objections Kokot further argues that Herro s objections are ahsuld and his belict that the vessel may be arrested has no hearing on the fact that Clickbait is at the heart of the litigation and that Kokot is entitled to know its location and whether it has been remained, and she is also entitled to conduct an inspection 0fthe Vessel In the Opposition, Hem) states that Kokot failed to artiLulate how Clickhait 5 current location is relevant to any claim or defense and that Kokot has not made the 4ppropriate request to inspect the vessel the Court disagrees As Kokot points out, parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any patty 5 claim or dctense, and Hem) does not claim this infonnation is privileged The Court finds that Clickbait is central to this litigation, so its current lucation and name changes are ielevant, discoverable information that Kokot is entitled to And Kokot need not file d. request pursuant to V I R Civ P 34, to inspect the Vessel, in order to determine where it is located Thus, the Court will compel Hem) to supplement his responses to Interrogatmy Nos 9 and 10

Kola)! \ St Julm Front Desk LLC at 1!! Cite as 2023 V1 Super 3U Case No ST 2020 CV 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plaintift‘: Motion to Compel (Herm) Pa e 8 0t 16

c) Interrogatory N0 14

Interrogatory No 14 and Hem: 5 response respectively state

Interrogatory 14 lfyou claim that St John Front Desk LLC d/b/a Wharfside Watersports, Justin Bartosh, and/or Michael Ramsey were accessing or operating m/v Clickbait in 2019 without permission or your knowledge, please explain how any of them came into possession 0fthe vessel, and how the vessel was returned to you

RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction, Reservation of Rights and Genera1 Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO states Justin Banosh and Michael Ramsey had custody of the vesse1 while Sunsation Holdings, LLC was determining how and where to move the vessel They did not have permission to charter the vessel Once transponation from the USV1 was ananged fox the vessel, Sunsation Holdings, LLC rctneved the vessel

Kokot contends that Hcrro‘s response is insufficient and evasive because Hem) does not explain how BartOSh 0r Ramsey came into possession of Clickbait in 2019, nor how it was returned Hone states his answer is complete and responsive Hem) states that Banosh and Ramsey had custody of CliLkbait while Sumation sorted its transportation but that neither Baitosh nor Ramsey had permission to charter Clickbdit Be that as it may, the response does not explain how eithet acquired possession of Clickbdit, nor how it was returned As such, the Court wi1l compel Hem) to supplement his response to Interrogatory No 14 d) Intenogdtory No 15

Interrogatory N0 15 and Herm’s response, respectively, state

lntermgator) 15 Please state whether )ou Were ever paid by St John Front Desk, LLC d/b/a Wharfside Watersports, Justin Bartosh, and/or Michael Ramsey for the use or operation of m/v Clickbait, the dates and amounts of such payments, the form in which you received pa) ment and, if those funds were deposited into any bank or other financial institution, the name of that institution, and the name and account number into which the funds were deposited

[(0ka \ St John from Desk LLC 9! (ll Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U Case No SI 2020 CV 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Cmnpel (Herro) Page 9 of 16

RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO states Hem) objects to the disclosure 0t any identification ofbank and/or financial institutions, and information related to particular account numbers that information is not reasonably related to any claim or defense in this matter and is not discoveidble Mr Herm was never paid by St John Front Desk LLC d/b/d Wharfside Watersports Justin Banosh and/or Michael Ramsey for the operation of m/v Clickbait

Kokot repeats her contention that Hem: waived his objections by not timely filing responses In addition Kokot contends that the information sought in Interrogatory N0 15 is relevant because it would demonstrate whether Hem) was paid far chartering CliLkbait, and that Wharfside has submitted documents showing that Wharfsidc paid Hem) for the use and operation ot the vessel Kokot claims Hem: 5 statement that he was never paid by Wharfsidc or Banosh or Ramsey fox the operation of Clickbait is tnlse In a nutshell, the dispute surrounding Interrogatory N0 15 is not whether Herro’s response is complete but that Kokot believes the response is false The Conn finds Herro has sufficiently responded, stating he was never paid by Wharfside, Banosh, or Ramsey for the operation of Clickbait Even though Kokot has reason to believe the response is false at this juncture the Court cannot direct Hem) to change his response or direct him to give a ditterent answet 6 As a result, the Court will not compel Harm to supplement his response to Intenogdtory No 15 [I First Set of Requests for Production Kokot also moves the Court to compel Herro to supplement Request tor Production Nos 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and l l Under Rule 34, a movant may serve any other party a request for production,

5 Hem) procccds, however, at this own risk it he has indeed given a false statement under oath and refuses to retract m cancel it

KOL0h SI Julm FrumDuk LLC a! u! Cite as "023 VI Super 3U Case No ST 2020 CV 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Compcl (Heno) Page 10 0f16

ineluding designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in the other party 5 possession custody or control V I R Civ P 34(a) Dnnastorg 2019 VI Supei £1135 a) Request fol Production No 1 Request No l and HerrO’s response, respectively, state

Any communications, in any form, between you and the following person(s)

or entities (or any representative thereof) regarding m/v Clickhait, Loren Kokot, fmd/nr the lawsuit 2 Michael Ramsey;

b St John Front Desk, LLC d/h/a Wharfsidc Watersports;

c Justin Bartosh, d Nathan Fletcher

RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and General Objeetions as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO states Hem) abjects t0 and will not produce communications between Hem) and legal counsel as they are privileged by the attorney client privilege There 1T3 n0 non privileged communications in his custody, possession or control

Kokot seeks to eumpel Hem) to produce documents iesponsive to Request No l, asserting that it is not Ciedible that H0110 cannot provide documentation of any requested communication Request N0 1 demands the production of communications between Hem: and Ramsey Whartside Bartosh, and Nathan Fletcher, which Herro does not specifically address in his response nor in Opposition Hem) states that communications between himself and his legal counsel will not be produced because they are privileged under the attorney client relationship; and the Court agrees with Hem) that his communieations with his legal Lounsel are privileged But Kokot’s request does not seek privileged documents, and even if Hem: were to cunsidcr his legal LOLmSCl as his representative”, the request is much bloader and addresses communications between Helm and Ramsey Whartside, Banosh, and Nathan Fletcher, none of whom ale Hem) 5 legal representative Therefore, the CouIt will compel Hem) to supplement his response to Request No 1 t0 the extent that Harm shall iespond to each subpart ochquest N0 1

Kokoli St John Fran! UL VA LLC at (z! Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U Case No ST 2020 CV 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Herro) Page 11 m 16

b) Request for Production No 3 Request N0 3 and Hem) 5 response respectively state

Any receipts or invoices in your possession or otherwise accessible by you for any repairs or maintenance for m/v Clickbait between January 1, 2018, and present

RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objettions HERRO states This request will be supplemented to the extent that documents are available To date, Mr Hem) has found no responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control

Kokot asserts Herru is falsely claiming these documents ate not in his possession Kokot argues that it these documents are available to Sunsa’tion, they should be available to Hem), who is a member (If the LLC The Coun finds that evidence of any repairs or maintenance done on Clickbdit is relevant to Kokot’s injuries Theiefore, t0 the extent that Hem) has possession, custody, or control of the requested documents, including those documents in the possession, custody and control OfSunsation, Harm has a duty to pioduce the requested documents and must supplement his response In Request No 3 In addition to the extent that Heno and/or Sunsation latel tomes into the possession, Lustody, or contiol ofthe requested datuments, H6110 has a duty to supplement his response to Request No 3 c) Request for Production N0 7 Request No 7 and Harm 3 response, respectively state

Any written agreements regarding m/V Clickbait St John Front Desk, LLC d/b/a Wharfside Wntcrsports, Justin Bartosh, and/or Michael Ramsey

RESPONSE HERRO incoxporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and General Objections as set farth above Without waiving any objections HERRO states There were no Mitten agreements with the above parties

Kola)“ SI Julm Franz Dc VA LLC £1111 Cite as 2073 VI Super 3U Case No ST 2020 (V 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Compel (Harm) Page 12 0t 16

Kokot asselts that Hem) has a legal duty to produce the documents requested even if they are in Sunsation 5 physical possession The Calm agrees To the extent that Hem) has possession custody, or control of the tequested documents, including documents in the possession, custody and control of Sunsation Hem) has a duty to produce the 1equested documents and must supplement his response to Request N0 7 The Court will therefore order Herro to supplement his response to Request No 7 d) Request for Production No 8 Request N0 8 and Herro’s response, respectively, state

An) insurance policy for m/V Clickbait in effect at any time between January 1,2017 present

RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and Gencial Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO states This request is objected to the extent that it requests iusu1ante policies not during the time period that is relevant to the issue raised in the complaint in this matter There is no insurance policy

Of counse, Kokot first aigues that Hem) has waived all objections In addition, Kokot argues that the insurance policies must be produced because it will give insight as to who held an insurable interest in Clickbait and would highlight who owned Clickbait especially since Hem) is claiming that Sunsation Holdings owned the Vessel at the time of the incident giving tise to this case Heno’s objection that Kokot is seeking documents outside the relevant timeframe is without merit since the accident uLcurred in June 2019 The Court notes that Herro does state “[t]heie is no insurance policy ” However, in light at the earlier portion 0fthe response that raises an Objection, it is not Clea! ifindeed there was no insulanee policy covering Cliekbait tram January

Kokol \ SI .1011}? From Dull [1C a u] Cite 15 2023 VI Super 3U Case No 51 2020 (.V 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plamutt 5 Motion to Comps] (Hens) Page 13 of 16

l 20l7 to the time the request was propounded Therefore the Court will direct Herro to respond to the request again e) Request for Production No 10 Request No 10 and Hem) s iesponse respectively state

Any dockage agreements or agreements for the storage, docking or mooring of m/v Clickbait in effect between January 1, 2018, and present

RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO states This request is objected to the extent that it requests insurance policies not duiing the time period that is relevant to the issue raised in the complaint in this matter

Again, Kokot points out that Hem) s objections are untimely Kokot maintains that the documents in this request are relevant to know who Owned Clickbait during that timehame The CouIt notes that Ham‘s response is non responsive as his responses refer to insurance policies, while nothing in the iequest references an insurance policy Indeed, Herro‘s response to the Rule 37 l lettei states that Herro’s response to Request N0 10 was in error and that the answei would be supplemented Pl ’5 Mot to Compel EX 7 But theie seems to have been no supplement prmided The Court therefoxe relies on the original response The Court finds that the response is non responsive And the objection was untimely Thercfme, the Court will compel Herro to supplement Request N0 10 and provide all documents that are responsive, inLluding those in the possession, custody, or cnntiol 0fSunsation fl Request for Production No l 1 Request N0 11 and Helm 5 response, respectively, state

Any documentation showing the receipt of any funds you were ever paid by St John Front Desk, LLC d/b/a Wharfside Watersports, Justin Bartosh, and/or Michael Ramsey for the use or operation of m/v Clickbait and if those

Kola“ St John Flam Dali LLC (’1 a] Cue as 203 VI Supcr3U Case No ST 2020 CV 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plainttft 5 Motion to Compel (Hone) Page 14 of 16

funds were deposited into a bank or other financial institution, documentation showing the accouut(s) into which those funds were deposited

RESPONSE HERRO incorporates the Introduction Reservation of Rights and General Objections as set forth above Without waiving any objections HERRO states Hem) objects to the diselosure of any identification of bank and/or financial institutions and informatian related to partinular account numbers that information is not reasonably related to any claim or defense in this matter and is not discoverable There were no payments from any at those parties

Once again, Kokot argues that Herro‘s objections ale untimely In addition, Kukot argues that documents responsive to this request are relevant as they would prove ownership of Clickhait and/or whether Hem) was treating Sunsation Holdings as his piggy bank Kokot asserts that if payments were made to Sumation or another entity contiolled by Hem), Hone has a duty to obtain and produce those documents Like the response to Request No 8, it is unclear ifthere were absolutely no payments from any ofthose patties Therefore, the Conn will direct Herro to respond to the request again Ill Kokot’s reasonable expenses Kokot moves the Com, also, to impose sanctions on Hem) because Hem) failed to timely respond to discovery and his responses weie evasive In the Virgin Islands, “[i]fa party sewed fails to make all necessary disclosures as required by [Rules 33 and 34] the party requesting disclosure may move to compel discovexy under Rule 37(a)(l) " Cruz \ Vtrgm Island; Water and Pane; Authority 2020 VI Super SU 114 And crucially pursuant to Rule 37 [i]fthe motion [to compel] is granted in pan and denied in pan, the coutt may, after giving an opportunity to be heard apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion V I R Civ P 37(a)(5)(C) 7

7 Reasonable expenses Include attorney : fees C/u mum \ PEIIEMEH 2021 VI Super 73H, 115 (citing to V l R Liv P 37(a)(5)(A))

Kokol t S! John [mm Desk LLC or [II Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U Case No ST 2020 CV 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff‘s Motion to Comps] (Herm) Page 15 0f 16

Here, Kokot served the first set ofinterrogatories and requests for production on March 3, 2022 accqrdingly Helm had thirty days to respond See V I R Civ P 33 and 34 Instead on April 12 2022, Herro requested an extension until April 29 2022 but did not file his responses until May 5 2022 Kokot then followed up that same May 5 with the Rule 37 1(b)letter detailing the deficiencies in Harm’s discovery responses The parties met and conferred in pel son on May 9, 2022, when Helm agteed to supplement his responses to the discovery demands by May 23 2022 Hem) then failed to supplement any of his responses by May 23 2022 Kokot informed Hem) that a motion to compel would be filed on June 1, 2022, ifl-lerro did not supplement his diseovery responses On May 3 l, 2022, Hem) noted that he would continue asserting objections and that the discovery responses would not be supplemented This instant motion was subsequently filed The Court finds that sanctions covering the reasonable expenses for the motion are appropriate here where the responding party has repeatedly missed deadlines to submit discovery and is now being compelled to supplement some ofhis responses See V I R Civ P 37 Advisory’s Committee on Rules comment (“The prevailing party on discovex y motions continues to be entitled to recover the teasonable expenses entailed in the motion practice, including attomey’s fees ’)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing the Coutt will grant the Motion in pan and deny the Motion in part The Court will grant the motion that relates to lnten‘ogamry Nos 4 9 10 and 14 and Request for Production Nos 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and ll The Court will Older Hem) to provide supplemental responses to those intermgatories and request for ploduction of documents The Court will deny

Kokot v SI John F/om D?.lk LLC 8! [II Cite as 2023 VI Super 3U Case No QT 2020 CV 00153 Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff’s Motion to Compcl [Hei-rO) Page 16 cf 16

the ponion of the Motion that relates to lnterrogatory No 15 Finally the Court will order Hem: to pay Kokot 5 reasonable expenses incurred in the making 0fthis Motion An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered contemporaneously herewith

DATED January ,3} (4 2023 & % éé %/ Kathleen Mackay

Judge of the Superior Court ofthc Virgin Islands

A FTEST TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court

—Q{LATOYA CAMACHO Court Clerk Supeivisor g 2| /fig/ 33