CURTIS V. GÓMEZ District Judge
ATTORNEYS:
Andrew R. Duffy
Jeffrey P. Goodman
Robert J. Mongeluzzi
Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.
Philadelphia, PA
Ryan W. Greene
St. Thomas, USVI
Michael A. Budner
XXX
For the Plaintiffs, Andrew C. Simpson
Emily A. Shoup
Law Offices of Andrew Simpson
Christiansted, USVI
For Bonneville Contracting and Technology Group, Inc.; and Bonneville Group Virgin Islands Corporation Ryan C. Meade
Quintairo, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
Miami, FL
Douglas L. Capdeville
Melissa Pauline Ortiz
Law Office of Douglas L. Capdeville
Christiansted, USVI
For Virgin Islands Telephone Corp., ORDER
The Court will issue a memorandum opinion outlining its reasons at a later date. --------
Before the Court is the Objection of Bonneville Contracting and Technology Group, Inc.; and Bonneville Group Virgin Islands Corporation (collectively the "Bonneville Defendants") to a July 8, 2016, order (the "disclosure order") of the Magistrate ordering the disclosure of surveillance footage taken by the Bonneville Defendants of Harold Figueroa. In a July 20, 2016, order, the Court stayed the disclosure order pending resolution of the Objection.
Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 72.1(a)(1) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may seek review of a magistrate judge's nondispositive order by filing objections to the order with this Court within ten days after being served with a copy of the order. Harrison v. Bornn, Bornn & Handy, 200 F.R.D. 509, 513 (D.V.I.2001). In reviewing a magistrate judge's order, a district court will modify or vacate any portion of the magistrate judge's order that is found to be "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Anthony ex rel. Lewis v. Abbott, 289 F. Supp. 2d 667, 671 (D.V.I. 2003). A magistrate judge's order will be affirmed unless the Court is left with "the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Nicholas v. Wyndham Intern., Inc., 218 F.R.D. 122, 123 (D.V.I. 2003)(citing Harrison, 200 F .R.D. at 513.).
The premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that the July 20, 2016, order shall be VACATED at 12:00 PM on August 3, 2016, unless, no later than 12:00 PM on August 3, 2016, the Bonneville Defendants notify the Court, through an ECF filing, that they do not intend to use the surveillance footage in Court.
S\_________
CURTIS V. GÓMEZ
District Judge