DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
LEONARDO CASTILLO,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2001-CV-0133
v.
5
5
KMART CORPORATION,
5
5
Defendant.
5
__________________________________________5
TO: 
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Sunshine S. Benoit, Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Docket No. 50).  Defendant filed its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
Dated September 20, 2006, to which Plaintiff filed a reply.
Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider the Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel (Docket No. 48).  Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its previous
findings regarding the Demand for Production No. 36 and Demand for Production Nos.
37, 39, 40, 46, and 47.
According to the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, a “motion to reconsider shall be
based on: 1. intervening change in controlling law; 2. availability of new evidence, or; 3. the
Case: 1:01-cv-00133-RLF-GWC   Document #: 69   Filed: 07/06/07   Page 1 of 3
Castillo v. Kmart Corporation
2001-CV-0133
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
Page 2
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”  LRCi 7.4.  Plaintiff does not refer
to either intervening change in controlling law or availability of new evidence.  Rather,
Plaintiff contends that his motion is based on the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.  In Anderson v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., No. 04-3410, 2007 WL
1746258 (D.N.J. June 15, 2007), the court identified the same three bases as Local Rule 7.4,
upon which a motion to reconsider might succeed.  The court cited to examples of
successful motions to reconsider for each of the three bases.  Anderson at 1.  For the example
of the motion successfully using the third basis (the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice), the court’s parenthetical described, “motion for reconsideration
appropriate when court overlooked dispositive factual or legal matters presented to it.”
Id.  Therefore, clear error or manifest injustice is equated with the court’s overlooking of
dispositive factual or legal matters.
In a motion to reconsider, the movant is not allowed to present new arguments
which properly should have been presented in the original motion.  Id.  Therefore, in a
motion to reconsider under the third basis, the movant may only properly bring to the
court’s attention dispositive factual or legal matters which the court overlooked in
considering the original motion.
Case: 1:01-cv-00133-RLF-GWC   Document #: 69   Filed: 07/06/07   Page 2 of 3
Castillo v. Kmart Corporation
2001-CV-0133
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
Page 3
Plaintiff does not contend that the Court overlooked, nor did the Court overlook,
any dispositive factual or legal matters in considering the original motion. Rather, the
Court exercised its broad discretion to control discovery.  See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S.
574, 598 (1998).  As the Court did not overlook any dispositive factual or legal matters in
its consideration of the original motion, no clear error or manifest injustice has occurred.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 50) is DENIED.
2.
The Court’s Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Docket No. 48)
is AFFIRMED.
ENTER:
Dated: July 6, 2007
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:01-cv-00133-RLF-GWC   Document #: 69   Filed: 07/06/07   Page 3 of 3