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 THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration of Magistrate’s Order Dated May 14, 2008[,] Granting Motion to Stay (Docket No. 75) and Plaintiff’s Motion For Oral Arguments (Docket No. 77). Defendant filed a response to the motion for reconsideration, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto. This order is issued without necessity of response to the motion for oral arguments. 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). …
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-00026-3.pdf
SHA-256 813deef8d1b9e27fdc9bc85784ed522392e217ed4decdbc7c26d2f5dfb8df33d
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-813deef8d1b9
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 THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration of Magistrate’s Order Dated May 14, 2008[,] Granting Motion to Stay (Docket No. 75) and Plaintiff’s Motion For Oral Arguments (Docket No. 77). Defendant filed a response to the motion for reconsideration, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto. This order is issued without necessity of response to the motion for oral arguments. 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 Case: 1:06-cv-00026-RLF-GWC Document #: 79 Filed: 06/03/08 Page 1 of 3 Ehleiter v. Evanston Ins. Co. 2006-CV-0026 Order 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) (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). Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s underwriting file and the settlement agreement between Evanston, ACE, and GSI are not covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. Consequently, the order granting a stay of the order compelling their production must be vacated. However, Defendant’s appeal concerns these very documents. Hence, the Court’s finding, in it’s order granting a stay pending appeal, that production of the documents at issue in advance of resolution of Defendant’s appeal would effectively deny any protection that might be afforded in the event Defendant’s appeal is granted. Nothing in Defendant’s motion or reply persuades the Court that its previous order requires modification or reversal. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion For Oral Arguments (Docket No. 77) is DENIED. Case: 1:06-cv-00026-RLF-GWC Document #: 79 Filed: 06/03/08 Page 2 of 3 Ehleiter v. Evanston Ins. Co. 2006-CV-0026 Order 2. Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration of Magistrate’s Order Dated May 14, 2008[,] Granting Motion to Stay (Docket No. 75), is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: June 3, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:06-cv-00026-RLF-GWC Document #: 79 Filed: 06/03/08 Page 3 of 3