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 OF
COURT ORDER DATED JULY 18, 2007
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For
Reconsideration of Court Order Dated July 18, 2007 (Docket No. 165).  Plaintiff filed an
opposition to said motion, and Defendant filed a reply thereto.
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 #: 213   Filed: 01/08/08   Page 1 of 3
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 1-2.
Defendant argues that it produced certain documents responsive to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests.  However, the order at issue, 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, ordered Defendant to
produce the “copies of the maintenance logs in question.”  Order at 4.  As Plaintiff asserted
in her motion for sanctions and in her opposition to the motion for reconsideration, the
“maintenance logs in question” were the logs referenced by Captain Geary in his
deposition.  Thus, the fact that Defendant had produced certain safety codes and other
documents does not demonstrate how the Court’s finding regarding Defendant’s duty to
produce copies of the maintenance logs to which Captain Geary testified was erroneous.
Consequently, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to show clear error or manifest
injustice.
Moreover, Defendant seemingly argues that the Court order at issue somehow
precluded Captain Geary from providing certain opinions and testimony.  However, the
order at issue very clearly denied Plaintiff’s request for such sanction.
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 213   Filed: 01/08/08   Page 2 of 3
Jarvis v. Premuda, S.p.A.
2005-CV-0077
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration
Page 3
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion For
Reconsideration of Court Order Dated July 18, 2007 (Docket No. 165) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: January 8, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00077-RLF-GWC   Document #: 213   Filed: 01/08/08   Page 3 of 3