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
Page 2
(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
Page 3
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