Stephanie Hodge v. H. Duane Bobeck; Passport Holdings; Neptune Holdings; and Bobeck Real estate Company

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: June 12, 2020
• Docket: SX-08-CV-201
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX

STEPHANIE HODGE

PLAINTIFF,

V SX 08 CV 201 H DUANE BOBECK PASSPORT HOLDINGS NEPTUNE HOLDINGS AND Cite as 2020 V 1 Super 068P BOBECK REAL ESTATE COMPANY

DEFENDANTS

FOR PUBLICA TION

Appearances

LEE ROHN, ESQ Christiansted, USVl Attorneyfor Plamtzjf

ANDREW SIMPSON, ESQ Christiansted USVI Attorneyfiw Defendants

HOWARD PHILLIPS, ESQ Christiansted, USVl Attorneyfor Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION (Order preV iously entered on August 9 2019)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas

Duces Tecum (hereinafier ‘Motion’) filed July 25, 2019 The Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August

6, 2019 The Court reviewed the matter and issued an order quashing the subpoenas on August 9 2019

The Court will issue further orders consistent with this memorandum opinion Hodge t Bobeck 2020 V 1 Super 068? SX 2008 CV 20] Memorandum Opinion Page 2 of 13

BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff‘s Second Amended Complaint alleges eight claims against the Defendants

including violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Count I), violation of the Virgin Islands

discrimination and harassment statutes (Count II), wrongful discharge and constructive discharge

(Count 111), slander and defamation (Count IV), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V),

contractual compensation for a gas allowance (Count VI), breach of contract and breach of duty of

good faith and fair dealing (Count VII), and a pattern and practice of sexual harassment of female

employees (Count VIII) (See generally Second Amended Compl )

On July 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed several notices of intent to serve subpoenas duces Iecum

The entities served (generally via an agent) included the V I Port Authority, V I Department of Labor,

V I Economic Development Commission Marshall & Sterling of St Croix and Davis Jackson an

accountant According to the Defendants the Plaintiff’s subpoenas would require the served entities

to produce to the Plaintiff confidential commercial privileged and personal material that is not

relevant to the Plaintiff 5 claims or defenses (Mot l ) Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks

1 V I Port Authority (VIPA) All documents referencing an option to purchase, or lease granted to Gallows Bay Development Partners, Neptune Holding LLC, Passport Holding and Duane Bobeck and all related correspondence, emails minutes of meetings memos related to said option or lease or does {sic} business with Virgin Islands Port Authority

2 V I Department of Labor (DOL) Any documents evidencing Worker s Compensation coverage between 2006 2008 for Neptune Holdings LLC Passport Holdings LLC Bobeck Real Estate Inc or Duane Bobeck

3 V I Economic Development Commission (EDC) The files including, but not limited to, any financial statements and all other documents in the file concerning Neptune Holding LLC, Duane Bobeck or Janis Bobeck, Passport Holdings and Bobeck Real Estate

4 Marshall Sterling of St Croix, Insurance Company [Marshall & Sterling] Copies of all insurance policies in effect in 2006 2008 for Duane and Janis Bobeck Bobeck Real Estate, Passport Holdings, Neptune Holdings that provided coverage for claims of defamation, discrimination, sexual harassment and wrongfitl discharge Hodge 1 Bobeck 2020 V I Super 068P SX 2008 CV 201 Memorandum Opinion Page 3 of 13

5 Davis Jackson, Accountant CPA (Jackson) Documents indicating applications for EDC benefits for Neptune Holdings LLC or any other companies Duane or Janis Bobeck are members or shareholders of companies so applying, documents granting EDC benefits documents that give EDC benefits to Duane Bobeck directly or indirectly, regarding obtaining or maintaining EDC tax benefits, tax filings on behalf of Duane Bobeck taking EDC tax benefits

Any financial statements and/or tax returns for Neptune Holdings LLC from 2003 to 2009 and for 2017 to 2018 Any tax returns or financial statements for the Bobeck Family Trust from 2010 to the present

The accounting records of Bobeck Real Estate, Neptune Holdings LLC, Passport Holdings LLC and Duane and Janis Bobeck from 2003 to 2009

(Mot at 2 3 See Notices of Intent to Serve Subpoena July 12 2019)

The Defendants assert that only nonprivileged and relevant information may be discoverable

by subpoena, (Id at 3), but the Plaintiff seeks confidential privileged business records, leases, reports

and other documents (Id at 4 ) The Defendants suggest that certain business records may not be

produced pursuant to Section 881, Title 3 of the Virgin Islands Code (Id) However the statute cited

by the Defendants provides specific examples of which types of public recordsI are deemed

confidential, none of which the Defendants point to with particularity except trade secrets The

Defendants briefly discuss trade secrets in the Motion, stating that ‘[i]t is not unreasonable to posit

that a company s submission of documents to a CPA or required reporting and submissions to

governmental agencies may contain trade secrets (Mot at 7 ) The Defendants assert that they would

have to review the documents produced by the subpoenaed entities to determine which documents

might contain trade secrets 2 (Id) Otherwise the Defendants make a general claim that the disclosure

I The statute defines public records as all records and documents of or belonging to this Territory or any branch of gm emrnent in such Territory or any department board council or committee of any branch of gov emment 3 V I C § 88l 2 As discussed more full) below the Court does not find it necessary to determine at this time whether the requested documents contain trade secrets because the information sought by the Plaintiff is irrelevant to her claims Hodge t Bobeck 2020 V 1 Super 068P SX 2008 CV 20] Memorandum Opinion Page 4 of 13

of confidential’ documents ‘would undoubtedly chill a company s willingness to comply with

government’s request for information ” (Id at 5 )

Additionally, ‘the documents sought, such as EDC benefits company financial statements; and

workers compensation coverage records are wholly unrelated to whether the Plaintiff was treated

poorly by her employer’ (Id at 4 ) The Defendants also allege that the Plaintiff’s subpoenas may be

construed as harassment; issued to intimidate the Defendants, and/or is fishing” for documents the

Plaintiff is not entitled to ’ (Id at 4 )

The Plaintiff counters with the argument that the Defendants cannot raise objections on behalf

of third parties pursuant to Rule 45(d) of the Virgin islands Rules of Civil Procedure (Opp’n 3 )

Generally an objection to a subpoena must be made in writing by the person subject to the subpoena,

V I R Civ P 45(d)(2)(b), and none of the subpoenaed entities have done so

The Plaintiff also alleges that the ‘Defendants have not stated any recognized privilege that

could bar Plaintiff’s requests (Opp’n at 4) [T]he)I failed to describe the nature of the withheld

business documents and their relation to any privilege so that Plaintiff can properly oppose the

claim ’ (Id at 5 ) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants cannot name a privilege because none of

the requested information or documents is privileged according to the rules of evidence (Id) Further

the ‘ Defendants have provided no evidence that any of the documents requested by Plaintiff contain

trade secrets ’ (Id at 6 ) The Plaintiff denies seeking information related to trade secrets (1d at 7 )

The Plaintiff also alleges that the subpoenaed information is relevant because it tends to make

the facts of the case more or less probable (See id at 6 l0 ) The Plaintiff is seeking the Defendants’

business information because the Plaintiff is ‘a past employee of Defendants where this is a dispute as

who was the actual employer and a claim for punitive damages ” (Id at 7 ) ‘There is evidence that

Plaintiff was paid by various companies, Bobeclt Real Estate, Passport Holdings and Neptune

Holdings ’ (Id) The Plaintiff also indicates an intent to prove Neptune Holdings was a mere shell Hodge v Bobeck 2020 V 1 Super 068P SX 2008 CV 20] Memorandum Opinion Page 5 of 13

that the other companies wired funds money to [and] that all companies simply wired to Duane

Bobeck as he needed them ’ (Id 7 8)

As to the tax documents, the Plaintiff states that ‘they will provide necessary information

regarding Defendant Bobeck’s financial worth as well as the other Defendants, which can be

considered where Plaintiff has a claim of punitive damages (Id at 9) ‘Because Plaintiff seeks

punitive damages the assets and finances of Defendants are relevant to provide evidence that Bobeck

and his intertwined businesses are in fact, solvent and able to pay substantial damages ” (Id ) This

statement indicates to the Court that the Plaintiff will attempt to pierce the corporate veil, though that

matter is not currently before the Court

The Plaintiff also specifically addresses the information sought from VIPA (Id at 10) The

information requested from VIPA is relevant because Plaintiff was given a percentage of the Gallows

Bay Development Partners as a part of her employment with Bobeck Plaintiff is claiming that she is

owed payment for the value ofthat asset [making the information about Gallows Bay Development]

relevant to Plaintiff 5 claims and damages as a result of the loss of that percentage of ownership (Id

citations omitted )

Additionally, the Plaintiff states that the information requested from DOL is necessary because

the Plaintiff disputes that she worked for Neptune Holdings LLC Allegedly the ‘Defendants claim a

part of Plaintiff 3 claims are barred by worker’s compensation,” but the ‘Plaintiff claims she was not

a covered employee and none of the Defendants were ’ (Id at 10 1 l ) The Court is uncertain about the

meaning of this statement but from context takes it to mean that the Defendants have alleged the

Plaintiff could not obtain worker’s compensation even though the Defendants should have coverage

as employers A review ofthe record shows that the Plaintiff allegedly filed a complaint with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Rights Commission, and Department of Labor (Second

Amended Compl SI 54 ) The Defendants deny knowledge about the Plaintiff” 5 statement (See Answers Hodge t Bobeck 2020 V I Super 068? SX 2008 CV 20] Memorandum Opinion Page 6 of 13

of all Defendants ‘5 54 ) According to the Plaintiff, ‘whether the companies had [worker s

compensation] coverage is relevant where Defendant claims Plaintiff was covered, and Plaintiffclaims

that she never received worker’s compensation ’ (Opp’n at ll )

The information from the EDC is sought because the Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages and

wants to know the Defendant’s ‘financial worth ’ (Id at l l ) As to Marshall & Sterling, the Plaintiff

disagrees with the Defendants that they did not have insurance and Defendant Bobeck testified at his

deposition that he had never actually looked to see whether they had a policy that would cover this

claim ’ (Id) The Plaintiff states that if a relevant policy exists then the Defendants have violated their

duty to disclosure that policy (1d )

STANDARD OF LAW

Pursuant to the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure the scope of discovery, including

subpoenas is limited to ‘nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense ’ V I R

Civ P 26(b)(l) The Court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery when “the proposed

discovery is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense ’ V I R Civ P 26(c)(iii)

DISCUSSION

1 Objections may not be raised on behalf of subpoenaed non parties

The Plaintiff asserts that the Motion must be denied because the Defendants cannot raise its issues on

behalf of non parties (Opp’n 3 ) A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things may serve

on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting copying, testing, or

sampling any or all of the materials ’ V i R Civ P 45(d)(2)(B) To the Court’s knowledge, none of the

entities served with the Plaintiff‘s subpoenas have objected Given the plain language of the rule the Defendants

may not lodge objections on behalf of the non parties

However [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

party’s claim or defense ’ V l R Civ P 26(b)(a) The Court is required to limit discovery otherwise allowed

when the proposed discovery is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense V I R Civ P 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) Hodge t Bobeck 2020 V I Super 068P SX 2008 CV 201 Memorandum Opinion Page 7 of 13

The Court must quash subpoenas that ‘require{] disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no

exception or waiver applies ” V l R Civ P 45(d)(3)(A)(iii) Quashing or modification of a subpoena is

permitted ‘to protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena” when it requires disclosing a trade secret

or other confidential research, development, or commercial information ”V I R Civ P 45(d)(3)(B)(l) When

dealing with trade secrets and confidential information, the Court can also order the production of information

when the serving party has a ‘substantial need for it ‘that cannot otherwise be met without undue hardship ”

V I R Civ P 45(3)(d)(C)(i)

In this case, the Court may limit the Plaintiff‘s subpoenas if it finds that the requested information is

privileged, would reveal trade secrets without a substantial need to do so or is not relevant to the Plaintiff‘s

claims These principles are explored below

2 The requested information may be confidential, but not privileged

A Confidennal Intormatzon

’When considering a motion to quash a subpoena where the private and confidential information of

a company, though not privileged under law is sought the Court may weigh the need for the documents against

the burden and invasion of corporate privacy ’” Joseph v Pricesmart LLC, 2018 V l LEXIS 17 (V 1 Super

Ct 20l6) (discussing deposition subpoenas and citing 0 Neale s Transp V Marshall & Sterling, 29 V I 2.:

(VI Terr Ct 1994)) Confidential means information meant to be kept secret ’BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY

In this case the Plaintiff has made several requests for confidential information, including

financial statements from the EDC applications for and grants of EDC benefits, tax filings, and

accounting records These documents are confidential because the information contained within them

is not known to the public and is not intended to be known absent purposeful disclosure by the person

or entity to which the information pertains Given the nature of this matter, the Defendants clearly do

not wish to divulge this information In weighing the Plaintiff‘s need for the documents against the

invasion of privacy, the Court finds that the information should remain confidential for the time being

because the Plaintiff does not need the information to prosecute her claims The financial statements,

EDC benefits, tax filings and accounting records do not help the Plaintiff prove her case The Plaintiff Hodge v Bobeck 2020 V I Super 068P 8X 2008 CV 20] Memorandum Opinion Page 8 of 13

has specified that the information she seeks is related to damages, but the Plaintiff is not entitled to

damages as of yet

The Plaintiff also alleges that there is a dispute as to which defendant was the Plaintiffs

employer The identity of the official employer should be apparent from the Plaintiff‘s own tax

documents, and the numerous exhibits submitted with her Opposition indicate via the Plaintiff’s

business email signature that she was an employee ofNeptune Holdings LLC Whether the Plaintiff” s

salary was paid by a different defendant, and whether the corporate form was ignored is a separate

issue However, the Court will allow the Plaintiff to pursue information specific to her employment

status with the Defendants which is discussed further below

B Privileged Intormatlon

The Virgin Islands recognizes several specific evidentiary privileges in statute and in the Virgin Islands

Rules of Evidence To make a claim that subpoenaed information is privileged, the withholding person must

expressly claim privilege and describe the nature of the withheld documents is a manner that enables the serving

party to assess its claim V l R Civ P 45(a)(e)(A) The Defendants do not allege any specific privilege other

than trade secret “A trade secret is defined as information that derives actual or potential economic value from

not being generally known to readily ascertainable, and which is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain

its secrecy VI 4D LLLP v Crucmns In Focus Inc 57 V I 143 (citing 11 VIC § 1002(d))

Here the Court is in agreement with the Defendants that some of the documents and information

requested by the Plaintiff may contain trade secrets, but the Defendants have not provided the Court with

sufficient information to determine where the trade secrets lie There is nothing before the Court that establishes

any particular information has an actual or potential economic value that stems from its secrecy For this reason,

the Court will reject the trade secrets and privilege argument

3 The requested information is not relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims

The Plaintiff has alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act violation of Virgin Islands

discrimination and harassment statutes slander/defamation intentional infliction of emotional distress, Hodge v Bobeck 2020 V I Super 068P SX 2008 CV 20] Memorandum Opinion Page 9 of 13

compensation for a promised gas allowance, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and

contractual duties, and pattern and practice of sexual harassment (See generally Second Amended

Compl ) A review of the subpoenas duces teum issued by the Plaintiff demonstrate that the documents

and information sought have little relation to the allegations made against the Defendants

A Dispute as to the [sienna at Plamtzft 5 Employer

As noted above, the Plaintiff alleges that Neptune Holdings, LLC may not have been her actual

employer The Court finds that the question ofthe employer 5 identity is relevant insofar as the Plaintiff

must prove the identity of her employer at trial if she is to meet the burden of proof for the

discrimination and harassment claims However the Plaintiff‘s subpoenas are overly broad for

determining which defendant(s) may have constituted an employer As such, the Court will allow the

Plaintiff to re issue her subpoenas with the following request for information

Documents stating or indicating an employer employee relationship between Stephanie Hodge and any of the following persons or entities Duane Bobeck, Passport Holdings, Neptune Holdings, LLC; or Bobeck Real Estate Company

B Worker 3 Comgensatlon DOL

The subpoena to the DOL requests documents regarding workers’ compensation coverage from 2006

2008 for the Defendants According to the Defendants Plaintiff is not making a claim of Wrongful Discharge

or denial of Worker 5 Compensation (Mot 6) Nothing in the Plaintiff‘s Second Amended Complaint

indicates the relevance of worker’s compensation coverage either Whether the Defendants have worker’s

compensation coverage, and even whether compensation has been claimed by their employees, has no bearing

on any of the Plaintiff’s claims If the Defendants do not have worker’s compensation coverage as mandated by

law regardless of whether the Plaintiff has made or intends to make a compensation claim that is not an issue

before this Court As such the Plaintiff has overreached in her subpoena to DOL and it will be quashed

C Insurance Coverage at Plamtzfi 3 Claims Marshall & Sterling

The Plaintiff has also subpoenaed Marshall & Sterling for copies of all the Defendant’s insurance

policies that were in effect between 2006 and 2008 that specifically cover ‘ defamation discrimination sexual Hodge r Bobeck 2020 V 1 Super 068? SX 2008 CV 20] Memorandum Opinion Page 10 of 13

harassment and wrongful discharge ’ (Mot at 2 , Exhibit B to Mot ) The Defendants have stated that none exist

(Mot at 2, n 2 (stating Defendants disclosed to the Plaintiff in October 7, 2009 Rule 26 Initial Disclosures

that no insurance policy exists that could satisfy a judgment, in whole or part ”) Regardless of whether these

documents exist, they have no bearing on whether the alleged acts occurred in fact and do not prove any of the

Plaintiff‘s claims

Furthermore, the obligation to provide a copy of an insurance agreement that may satisfy ajudgment is

an initial disclosure requirement under Rule 26 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure V l R Civ P

26(a)( l )(A)(iv) ifthe Defendants have failed to supply a necessary disclosure, the Plaintiff" s remedy is to move

for an order compelling discovery, not to undertake an investigation herself See V I R Civ P 37(3)

D PlamtttZ 3 Contract Regarding Gallows Bay Development VlPA

The Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and breach of duties, which the Court assumes is related to the

profit sharing agreement that gives the Plaintiff a percentage share of profits attributed to an entity called

Gallows Bay Development Partners a subsidiary of Neptune Holdings LLC The agreement extends to cash

received from selling leasing or renting any asset or any use of any asset or personal property or product owned

or controlled by GBDP or any option or other consideration to use any asset or any cash received from financing

or any other cash received by GBDP including the sale of fuel, water, electricity, and dock space less expenses

(Exhibit ll to Opp n )

The Plaintiff subpoenaed VlPA for documents related to an option to purchase or to a lease granted to

Gallows Bay Development Partners or the Defendants Here since the profit sharing agreement does not involve

any defendant other than Neptune Holdings, LLC, the Plaintiff’s subpoena is impermissibly broad and seeks

irrelevant information The Plaintiff may not seek documents that do not relate to Neptune Holdings, LLC or to

Gallows Bay Development Partners The Court will allow the Plaintiff to reissue the subpoena to VlPA with

the following limited language

Documents referencing business conducted with Gallows Bay Development Partners or Neptune Holdings, LLC, as the parent company of Gallows Bay Development Partners, including any option to purchase or lease, and documents evidencing monies paid or transferred to Gallows Bay Development Partners or Neptune Holdings LLC, as the parent company of Gallows Bay Development Partners Hodge v Bobeck 2020 V I Super 068? SX 2008 CV 20] Memorandum Opinion Page ll of 13

E Corgorate Veil and Damages EDC and Jackson (CPA;

The subpoena to EDC is also overly broad and irrelevant because the financial statements and files held

by EDC have no relationship to the Plaintiff’s causes of action Likewise the subpoena issued to the accountant,

Jackson, is overbroad and mostly irrelevant It seeks documents regarding the Defendants’ EDC benefits which

the Court has already determined are confidential and do not prove the Plaintiff’s claims The Plaintiff notes

that this Court has previously adhered to the Restatement rule that indicatesjuries may consider the wealth of a

defendant when awarding punitive damages (Opp’n 8 9 (citing In re Cotabst ng , Individual Docket No SX

05 CV 806 2016 WL 4479487 (V 1 Super Ct 2016)) While the jury may consider wealth the Court does not

read that rule to say that the jury must be provided with hard evidence of a defendant’s net worth

It also seeks the financial statements and tax returns of Neptune Holdings LLC for 2003 2009 and

2017 2018, and accounting records for all Defendants from 2009 2009 However, the Plaintiff was employed

by Neptune Holdings LLC (or the other Defendants) only between February 2006 and February 2008 See

generally Second Amended Comp] Again the Plaintiff will be permitted to reissue the subpoenas to seek

documents specifically indicating an employer employee relationship between the Plaintiff and any defendant,

but the Court will only allow such an intrusion only for the relevant timeframe 2006 up to any filings made in

2009 that pertain to the year 2008, since that was the last year of Plaintiff” 3 employment

The subpoena also requested tax returns and financial statements for the Bobeck Family Trust from

2010 to present Duane Bobeck has stated that he transferred his shares of Bobeck Real Estate Company to the

trust in December 2010 (Duane Bobeck Deposition 90 ) A transfer of assets in the pendency of a lawsuit raises

a red flag but is not immediately presumed to be fraudulent Bobeck stated in his deposition that the shares were

likely moved as part ofestate planning, and the burden in the case of a favorable judgment that cannot otherwise

be satisfied, will be on the Plaintiff to prove otherwise The Court fails to see how the numbers of the trust’s

accounting records will assist the Plaintiff at this time

The Plaintiff’s subpoenas and justifications outlined in her Opposition have alerted the Court to her

intention to pierce the corporate veil To pierce the corporate veil is an equitable remedy whereby a court

disregards the existence of the corporation due to abuse of the corporate form Mat/1650” v V] Cmty Bank Hodge v Bobeck 2020 V 1 Super 068P SX 2008 CV 201 Memorandum Opinion Page 12 of 13

Corp 297 F Supp 2d 819 833 (D V 1 200.3) (citing Trs ofthe Nat I Elevator Indus Penszon Health Benefit

& Educ Funds v Lutyk, 332 F 3d 188 192 (3d Cir 2003) Under both state and federal common law abuse

of the corporate form will allow courts to employ the tool of equity known as veil piercing, i e disregarding the

corporate entity to impose liability on the corporation’s shareholders Piercing the corporate veil, while

sometimes raised in a complaint, is not technically a mechanism for imposing legal liability, but for remedying

the fundamental unfairness that will result from a failure to disregard the corporate form ’ Balbo Corp v

Emghed Condos LLC, 20] I V I LEXIS l 1 (internal brackets and quotation marks removed) (citation omitted)

In this case the Plaintiff has not specifically raised veil piercing in her Amended Complaint or by

motion, or even in her Opposition, so it is a matter that is not properly before the Court at this time except as a

potential remedy As such, the Court will not allow the Plaintiff to issue subpoenas as though piercing the veil

is a certainty Furthermore, there will be no need to pierce the veil unless and until the Plaintiff is in possession

of ajudgment that cannot otherwise be satisfied Ifthe Plaintiff receives ajudgment that can be fulfilled without

intrusion by the Court into the functioning the business defendants, then the point is moot

CONCLUSION

In sum the Plaintiff s subpoenas to DOL and Marshall & Sterling are fully quashed for

irrelevance The Court will allow the Plaintiff to reissue subpoenas to VIPA BBC and Jackson in

accordance with the above opinion so that the Plaintiff may seek information relating specifically to

her employment and to whether proceeds from Gallows Bay Development Partners have been withheld

from her Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the subpoenas to Department of Labor and Marshall & Sterling of St Croix

are QUASHED It is further

ORDERED that the subpoenas issued to Virgin Islands Port Authority, the Economic

Development Commission, and to accountant Davis Jackson are MODIFIED, nun pro tune, as

indicated in this Memorandum Opinion If the Plaintiff intends to reissue the modified subpoenas, she

must do so within THIRTY (30) DAYS Hodge v Bobeck 2020 V I Super 068P SX 2008 CV 201 Memorandum Opinion Page 13 of 13 {in DONE and so ORDERED this [,2 day of June 2020

ATTEST / J 3 9// Tamara Cha HARD D L WILLOCKS Clerk oft / / Presiding Judge of the Superior Court

By //// lag/l, /// /@ Cou lerk S nerviso U I Dated ', fl I 3Q