C IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN ********** JEFFREY EPSTEIN and L.S.J., LLC., ) CIVIL NO. ST-10-CV-443 v. FANCELLI PANELING, INC., Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES ) ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER By Order dated March 7, 2011, the Court directed Fancelli Paneling to File a Motion to File Reply Out of Time on or before March 10, 2011. The body of the Order notes that such a Motion must show "excusable neglect" for Fancelli's failure to timely file the reply. The March 7, 2011 Order was placed in the mailbox for FenceIli's counsel on March 8, 2011. In addition, a copy of the Order was sent by fax to FenceIli's counsel in the morning on March 8, 2011. Despite the Court's Order, Fanelli did not move to file the Reply out of time. Instead, it filed a "Motion to Extend Time to Respond to File Motion for Leave"' on March 10, 2011. From the body of that Motion, it appears that Fancelli was requesting additional time in which to file its Motion to File Reply Out of Time. In support thereof, it states that "Defendant's Counsel had several unanticipated delays this date, all as more fully outlined in the Motion for Leave to File Out of Time." On March 11, 2011, Fancelli filed an "Amended Reply." However, Fancelli did not inform the Court how the Amended Reply purports to amend the March 10, 2011 Reply. Then, on March 14, 2011, Fancelli filed a "Motion to File Out of Time and For Acceptance Nunc Pro Tunc of Defendant's Reply to Opposition." In the body of that Motion, which the Court will construe both as a Motion to File the Reply Out of Time as well as a Motion to File Out of Time the Motion to File Reply Out of Time, Fancelli states, inter alia, that in the Superior Court "we tend to operate on time limits from when something is served and opposing counsel would otherwise presume time limits to commence from that act." To the contrary, the Court operates on the time limits provided by the r