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
Page 2
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
Page 3
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