IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OPINION OF ...

Watts v. Two Plus Two, Inc.S.Ct. Civ. No. 2007-127Concurring OpinionPage 12 of 23has not proven it was prejudiced by Appellant’s failure to cooperate with Two Plus Two incomplying with the Mediation Order, which resulted in prejudice to Two Plus Two.4. Both parties failed to comply with the trial court’sscheduling orderAdditionally, the February 15, 2007 Scheduling Order imposed several deadlinesfor both Appellant and Appellees. Although Appellant had already conducted a depositionof Bell, both parties were required to complete all factual discovery and fact witnessdepositions by May 25, 2007. No party complied with this deadline. Appellant wasrequired to submit his expert disclosures by June 22, 2007. Appellant failed to comply withthat instruction until July 23, 2007, undoubtedly after the deadline, and well after Two PlusTwo had submitted its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. Nonetheless, Appelleesfailed to explain how Appellant’s one-month tardiness in filing his expert disclosuresprejudiced them, considering that Appellees did not complete their own factual discoveryand depositions by the trial court’s deadline. Therefore, I conclude that in the absence ofspecific evidence to the contrary, on the record before us, Appellant’s failure to complywith the discovery deadline had no discernable adverse impact upon Appellees. Thedeadline for Appellant’s expert disclosures is independent of Appellees’ July 27, 2007deadline to disclose experts, unless Appellant’s disclosure of his expert was contingentupon Appellees’ disclosure of their experts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) (“In addition tothe disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties theidentity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule ofEvidence 702, 703, or 705.”); see also Wilburn v. Maritrans GP, Inc., 139 F.3d 350, 355(3d Cir. 1998) (“Pursuant to Rule 26(a), a party must disclose certain evidence to the other