ST. CROIX — Superior Court Judge Venetia Harvey Velázquez said Thursday that she will deny a pending motion for a protective order in a lawsuit filed by former Virgin Islands Housing Finance Authority Chief Operating Officer Stephanie Berry, allowing Berry’s attorneys to continue seeking information from former VIHFA employees outside the presence of the Authority’s attorneys.
The ruling came during a status conference in Berry’s 2024 civil lawsuit against VIHFA, former interim Executive Director Dayna Clendenin, and former Executive Director Eugene Jones Jr.
Berry alleges she was fired in retaliation for reporting procedural and financial violations within the agency, in violation of the Virgin Islands Whistleblower’s Protection Act. The lawsuit includes claims alleging whistleblower retaliation, tortious interference, defamation, and breach of contract.
Berry served as VIHFA’s chief operating officer from January 2023 until her termination on October 7, 2024. She filed suit December 1, 2024, alleging that she was terminated after reporting suspected wrongdoing involving, among other issues, fiduciary breaches, contractor payments, and compliance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements.
The defendants sought a protective order that would have prohibited Berry’s attorneys at Lee J. Rohn and Associates LLC from having ex parte — or out-of-court communications without opposing counsel present — with former VIHFA employees.
Berry opposed the request, arguing that the defendants had misapplied the applicable rules governing attorney communications and failed to establish that the former employees’ communications with her attorneys would be protected.
In her opposition, Berry argued that while the Virgin Islands Rules of Professional Conduct generally prohibit attorneys from communicating with a person known to be represented by counsel without that counsel’s consent, an organization’s attorney does not represent its former employees merely because they previously worked for the organization.
Berry also argued that VIHFA could not broadly invoke attorney-client privilege to prevent contact with former employees. She contended the defendants had failed to provide sufficient information to support their privilege claims or identify the communications they considered privileged. She further argued that, as a public agency, VIHFA could not assert attorney-client privilege over communications that occurred before she filed her lawsuit, and that the defendants had failed to establish that any relevant privileged communications occurred afterward.
Berry also challenged the defendants’ reliance on case law, arguing that many of the cases they cited actually permitted ex parte contact with former employees unless unusual circumstances existed. She noted that their primary precedent, Mendez v. Hovensa, involved a current employee rather than a former one.
In addition, Berry argued that the defendants had not presented actual evidence establishing the positions held by the former employees whose contact they sought to restrict. Without that information, she argued, the court could not determine whether any of the former employees had authority or knowledge that could legally bind the agency.
During Thursday’s status conference, Velázquez said she would deny the motion for a protective order and enter an appropriate order.
The discussion then turned to the status of discovery in the case.
Velázquez noted that several discovery motions remain pending, including motions seeking to compel the defendants to respond to Berry’s written discovery requests.
Attorney Rhea Lawrence, of Rohn & Associates, represented Berry at the hearing. Lawrence appeared in person, but Berry did not attend. Lawrence said the court’s order should establish an expedited deadline for the defendants to respond to discovery.
Attorney Shari D’Andrade, representing VIHFA, appeared virtually. Her clients did not participate. She agreed that the court should set a specific date for the defendants to provide the requested discovery.
Velázquez said she would issue an order establishing dates by which the defendants must comply with their discovery obligations.
The discovery disputes follow an earlier effort by the defendants to have Berry’s lawsuit dismissed entirely.
In January 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, arguing that Berry had not adequately alleged a claim under the Virgin Islands Whistleblower’s Protection Act and that her remaining claims also failed as a matter of law. The defendants argued that Berry’s internal communications about agency operations fell within her routine responsibilities as chief operating officer and therefore did not constitute protected whistleblowing activity. They also argued that, as an exempt employee, Berry could be terminated without cause and had no property interest in her position.
Berry opposed the motion, arguing that her complaint identified specific suspected legal violations and alleged that she reported them not only within VIHFA but also to the VIHFA Board, the Office of the Inspector General, and the attorney general. She also alleged that the timing between her reports, warnings she said she received from Jones, and her subsequent termination supported an inference that she was fired in retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity.
In July 2025, Superior Court Judge Douglas Brady, who has since retired, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing all four counts of Berry’s complaint to proceed under the territory’s notice-pleading standard. Brady found that Berry had adequately alleged protected whistleblowing activity and that her allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to allow her claims for tortious interference, defamation, and breach of contract to proceed to discovery. The court also denied the defendants’ request to stay discovery and ordered the parties to move forward with the case.
With the judge set to deny the protective order and establish deadlines for outstanding discovery, the case will now move forward into the next stage of the discovery process.
