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 AMENDING ORDER ENTERED JANUARY 8, 2008
On even date, the Court entered Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For
Reconsideration of Court Order Dated July 18, 2007 (Docket No. 213).  However, the Court
erred in determining that the said motion (Docket No. 165) referred to the Court’s Order
Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Based on Defendant’s
Concealment of, and Failure to Produce, the Maintenance Logs of the Vessel Four Etoiles,
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) and 37(b)(2)(B) (Docket No. 162), entered July 18, 2007.
The said motion in fact asks the Court to reconsider its decision contained in the Court’s
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(b)(2) (Docket No. 161), which also was entered July 18, 2007.
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 217   Filed: 01/08/08   Page 1 of 3
Jarvis v. Premuda, S.p.A.
2005-CV-0077
Order Amending Order Entered January 8, 2008
Page 2
Having now considered the correct order and the underlying motion and response
and reply, the Court finds that reconsideration of the order at issue is warranted.  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.  Defendant states that “reconsideration is warranted
to correct clear error and prevent manifest injustice . . . .”  Motion at 1-2.
Defendant argues that it timely produced the hard copies of the documents
identified by Plaintiff, and found by the Court, as having not been produced.  The Court
concedes that it did overlook Defendant’s supplement to its opposition when it entered the
order (Docket No. 161) at issue. Consequently, the Court finds it has committed clear error
which it now will reverse.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED:
1.
 The Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration of
Court Order Dated July 18, 2007 (Docket No. 213) is AMENDED.
2.
Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration of Court Order Dated July 18, 2007
(Docket No. 165) is GRANTED.
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 217   Filed: 01/08/08   Page 2 of 3
Jarvis v. Premuda, S.p.A.
2005-CV-0077
Order Amending Order Entered January 8, 2008
Page 3
3.
That part of the Court’s Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions
Against Defendant Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) (Docket No, 161)
granting said motion, specifically, paragraph numbered 2 on pages 6-7,  is
REVERSED.
4.
Insofar as no other order entered subsequent to said order (Docket No. 161)
of July 18, 2007, precludes such testimony, Captain Geary may offer opinions
at trial based on the documents responsive to Plaintiff’s document request
nos. 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 18.
ENTER:
Dated: January 8, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 217   Filed: 01/08/08   Page 3 of 3