DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
CAONA JARVIS,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2005-CV-0077
v.
5
5
PREMUDA, S.p.A., owner and owner
5
pro hac vice of the Vessel FOUR ETOILES,
5
5
Defendant. 5
__________________________________________5
TO:
John K. Dema, Esq.
Chetema Lucas Francis, Esq. 
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FO
COURT ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2007
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For
Reconsideration of Court Order Dated September 21, 2007 (Docket No. 176).  Plaintiff filed
an opposition to said motion.  The time for filing a reply has expired.
Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, nothing therein persuades the
Court that its previous order requires modification or reversal.  Pursuant to Local Rule of
Civil Procedure 7.4, 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
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 200   Filed: 11/15/07   Page 1 of 2
Jarvis v. Premuda, S.p.A.
2005-CV-0077
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration
Page 2
injustice.”  LRCi 7.4.  Defendant states that “reconsideration is warranted to correct clear
error and prevent manifest injustice . . . .”  Motion at 2.
Defendant argues that it produced all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests.  However, the order at issue, Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions For Sanctions
and to Deem Conceded (Docket No. 173), entered September 21, 2007, found that
Defendant had a duty to produce all maintenance logs of the vessel Four Etoiles.  Order at
2-3.  Thus, the fact that Defendant produced certain documents it deemed responsive to
Plaintiff’s Request For Production Nos. 19, 21, and 24, does not constitute compliance with
the Court’s said order, nor does it demonstrate how the Court’s finding to regarding
Defendant’s duty to produce all logs was erroneous.  Consequently, the Court finds that
Defendant has failed to show clear error or manifest injustice.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion For
Reconsideration of Court Order Dated September 21, 2007 (Docket No. 176) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: November 15, 2007
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 200   Filed: 11/15/07   Page 2 of 2