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

Watts v. Two Plus TwoS. Ct. Civ. No. 2007-0127Opinion of the CourtPage 3 of 10witnesses be deposed on May 18 or May 21-25, 2007; and (4) suggested three proposedmediators. After having received no response to the May 5, 2007 letter, Two Plus Two’s counselsent Watts’s counsel a second letter on June 13, 2007—which contained a copy of the May 5,2007 letter—and also faxed both letters to Watts’s counsel. However, Watts’s counsel still didnot submit a response.Two Plus Two filed a motion to dismiss Watts’s complaint on July 16, 2007, on the basisthat Watts had failed to prosecute the action because the deadlines for factual discovery andWatts’s expert disclosures established in the February 16, 2007 scheduling order had lapsedwithout Watts taking any action to move the litigation forward. On July 23, 2007 and August 2,2007, respectively, Watts filed his expert report and submitted his Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 initialdisclosures. Watts also filed an opposition to Two Plus Two’s motion to dismiss on August 2,2007, in which he argued that his counsel never received any correspondence from Two PlusTwo, including the July 25, 2003 demand for discovery and the May 5, 2007 and June 13, 2007letters.The Superior Court scheduled a hearing on Two Plus Two’s motion on September 18,2007. Shortly before the hearing, Bell filed a pro se motion to join in Two Plus Two’s motion todismiss for failure to prosecute. At the hearing, Watts’s counsel informed the Superior Courtthat he had also never received either of the Superior Court’s February 16, 2007 Orders, and thatit was a common practice for him not to receive Superior Court orders in other matters. Watts’scounsel also argued that dismissal for failure to prosecute was not appropriate because he hadfurthered the case by deposing Bell on November 16, 2006. However, Two Plus Two’s counselclaimed that Two Plus Two had never received notice of this deposition. In an October 19, 2007Order, the Superior Court granted the Appellees’ motion and dismissed Watts’s action for failure