Ehleiter, Jack v. Evanston Insurance Co.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 JACK EHLEITER, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2006-CV-0026 v. 5 5 EVANSTON INSURANCE CO., 5 5 Defendant. 5 ________________________________________________5 TO: Joel H. Holt, Esq. Matthew J. Duensing, Esq. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration of Order Dated February 15, 2008 (Docket No. 61). Plaintiff filed a response to said motion , and Defendant filed a reply thereto. Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3, parties may seek reconsideration of an order issued by a judge or magistrate judge of this Court based upon “1. intervening change in controlling law; 2. availability of new evidence, or; 3. the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” LRCi 7.3 (formerly, LRCi 7.4). It is widely recognized that the ”’purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Snith v. City of Chester, 155 F.R.D. 95, 96 (E.D. Pa. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_06-cv-00026/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_06-cv-00026-1.pdf
SHA-256 203b8362ed7ad5fae56e8a3f9ddad00181ccf11f85db8523e7f95a08ddd78ae2
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-203b8362ed7a
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 JACK EHLEITER, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2006-CV-0026 v. 5 5 EVANSTON INSURANCE CO., 5 5 Defendant. 5 ________________________________________________5 TO: Joel H. Holt, Esq. Matthew J. Duensing, Esq. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration of Order Dated February 15, 2008 (Docket No. 61). Plaintiff filed a response to said motion , and Defendant filed a reply thereto. Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3, parties may seek reconsideration of an order issued by a judge or magistrate judge of this Court based upon “1. intervening change in controlling law; 2. availability of new evidence, or; 3. the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” LRCi 7.3 (formerly, LRCi 7.4). It is widely recognized that the ”’purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Snith v. City of Chester, 155 F.R.D. 95, 96 (E.D. Pa. 1994) Case: 1:06-cv-00026-RLF-GWC Document #: 67 Filed: 04/08/08 Page 1 of 3 Ehleiter v. Evanston Ins. Co. 2006-CV-0026 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration (citation omitted). Such a motion “[i]s not a vehicle for registering disagreement with the court's initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not.” Bostic v. AT & T of the Virgin Islands, 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). Defendant argues that production of the documents as ordered will violate its attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. However, the Court already made a finding regarding the documents specifically identified by Bates Stamp number. In addition, Defendant never asserted the joint defense privilege in the underlying motion to compel. “Parties are not free to relitigate issues that the Court has already decided, nor should parties make additional arguments which should have been made before judgment.” Smith, 155 F.R.D. at 97 (citation omitted). Nothing in Defendant’s motion or reply persuades the Court that its previous order requires modification or reversal. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration of Order Dated February 15, 2008 (Docket No. 61), is DENIED. Case: 1:06-cv-00026-RLF-GWC Document #: 67 Filed: 04/08/08 Page 2 of 3 Ehleiter v. Evanston Ins. Co. 2006-CV-0026 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration ENTER: Dated: April 8, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:06-cv-00026-RLF-GWC Document #: 67 Filed: 04/08/08 Page 3 of 3