DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
WINSTON FRANCIS, JR., as the personal
5
representative of the Estate of Winston
5
Francis, Sr.[,] and as the administrator of the 5
2007-CV-0082
Estate of Winston Francis, Sr.,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
5
v.
5
5
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,
5
5
Defendant.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Joel H. Holt, Esq.
James Bernier, Jr., Esq.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration
(Docket No. 83).  Defendant filed an opposition to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply
thereto.
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 injustice.”  LRCi 7.4.  It is widely recognized that the ”’purpose
Case: 1:06-cv-00082-RLF-GWC   Document #: 87   Filed: 10/19/07   Page 1 of 3
Francis  v. The Bank of Nova Scotia
2006-CV-0082
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration
Page 2
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).  Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, nothing therein
persuades the Court that its previous order requires modification or reversal.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order Regarding Defendant’s Motion
For Protective Order (Docket No. 80), stating that counsel was denied opportunity to
address the basis for such order.  While the Court stated that the documents at issue
contained information pertaining to an on-going criminal investigation, the actual basis for
the order is that the Court found the documents to be protected by the attorney work-
product privilege.  Upon reviewing the documents in camera the Court found that the
reports were prepared as a result of the on-going criminal investigation, consequently, they
can be said to have prepared “because of the prospect of litigation.”  Accord Shulton, Inc.
v. Optel Corp., Civ. No. 85-2925, 1987 WL 19491 (D.N.J. November 4, 1987.  Simply because
no one has been criminally indicted or prosecuted does not necessarily mean that the
investigation is not still open and on-going.  The undersigned is in a unique position to
have knowledge that the criminal matter is not closed and continues to be investigated.
Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to show a manifest error of fact.
Case: 1:06-cv-00082-RLF-GWC   Document #: 87   Filed: 10/19/07   Page 2 of 3
Francis  v. The Bank of Nova Scotia
2006-CV-0082
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration
Page 3
The cases cited by Plaintiff in said motion regarding stays of discovery in cases
where there is a pending companion criminal case clearly are not applicable nor analogous
to the facts in the matter at bar.  Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a “manifest error of
law.”  Further, Defendant has introduced no new evidence in support of reconsideration.
Therefore, reconsideration is not warranted on either of those bases.
Defendant appears merely to disagree with the Court’s ruling.  However, “clear
error or manifest injustice does not exist when a litigant merely disagrees with the court.”
Bostic v. AT & T of the Virgin Islands, 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 735 (D.V.I. 2004) (citation omitted).
See also Central Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Marello, No. Civ. A. 00-3344, 2001 WL 41129 at *2 (E.D.
Pa. January 17, 2001) (where the court states, “Dissatisfaction with the Court's ruling is not
a proper basis for reconsideration” (citing Burger King Corp. v. New England Hood and Duct
Cleaning Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1022 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2000)).
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For
Reconsideration (Docket No. 83) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: October 19, 2007
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:06-cv-00082-RLF-GWC   Document #: 87   Filed: 10/19/07   Page 3 of 3