Case Caption: Sheesley v. Palermo Case Number: SCT-CIV-2020-0015Date: 01/29/2025Author: Swan, Ive Arlington Citation: 2025 VI 5Summary: In an appeal from the Superior Court’s imposition of sanctions against an attorney in a personal injury case pursuant to Rule 11 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the court’s denial of his motion to reconsider the court’s imposition of sanctions, both arising from the attorney’s certification in connection with a supplemental Rule 26 disclosure he filed indicating that a potential witness had discoverable information about the litigation, this attorney was afforded ample opportunity to address the issue of whether he made a reasonable inquiry concerning the extent of the potential witness’s knowledge before making that filing. Nevertheless, that filing caused plaintiff’s counsel to depose the potential witness, only to determine that the potential witness in fact had no such information, thus wasting the time of both the court and plaintiff’s counsel and resulting in an unnecessary delay of the proceedings and needless increase in the cost of the litigation. Even though the Superior Court cited Rule 11 as the basis for its sanctions ruling, the Superior Court, in fact, considered the correct reasonable inquiry requirement embodied in Rule 26 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, and it made the required finding that the attorney’s certification under Rule 26 was sanctionable pursuant to that standard. Its use of Rule 11 as the basis for its sanctions ruling, rather than Rule 26, was therefore harmless. Accordingly, the Superior Court’s imposition of sanctions against the attorney is affirmed, as well as its denial of the attorney’s motion to reconsider the imposition of sanctions.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion