DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
DALE DUPIGNY,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2006-CV-0033
v.
5
5
COLT ATLANTIC SERVICES, INC.,
5
5
Defendant.
5
________________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Yolan C. Brow, Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM [sic] IN [sic]
RECONSIDERATION
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Memorandum [sic] in [sic]
Reconsideration of Court Order Dated March 18, 2008 (Docket No. 74).  Defendant filed an
opposition to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply thereto.
Plaintiff requests the Court to reconsider its Order Regarding Defendant’s Motion
to Compel (Docket No. 72), entered March 18, 2008.  Plaintiff claims that “the Court erred
in finding the Plaintiff was compelled to produce the confidential settlement to the non-
settling Defendant.”  Memorandum [sic] at 8.
Case: 1:06-cv-00033-AET-GWC   Document #: 78   Filed: 05/16/08   Page 1 of 3
Dupigny v. Colt Atlantic Services, Inc.
2006-CV-0033
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Memorandum [sic] in [sic] Reconsideration
Page 2
DISCUSSION
As Defendant observes, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely.  Local Rule of Civil Procedure
7.3 requires motions “asking the Court to reconsider its order or decision . . . be filed within
ten (10) days after the entry of the order or decision unless the time is extended by the
Court.  Extensions will only be granted for good cause shown.”  LRCi 7.3.  The order at
issue was entered March 18, 2008.  Plaintiff’s motion was filed April 10, 2008, clearly
outside the ten (10) day requirement of the Rule.  The record is void of any request by
Plaintiff to extend the deadline, nor does the record reflect any extension granted by the
Court.  In addition, Plaintiff does not even address the untimeliness of the motion, let alone
demonstrate good cause.  The Court could deny the motion upon this basis alone.
Upon review of the motion and other filings of the parties and upon due
consideration thereof, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that it
erred or that its order requires reversal.
Plaintiff relies heavily upon Doe v. Methacton School Dist., 164 F.R.D. 175 (E.D. Pa.
1995), wherein a defendant in that matter sought the disclosure of the plaintiffs’ Release
given in settlement of their claims against two (2) others defendants involved in the same
litigation. In its opinion, the United States District Court for the Eastern District Court of
Case: 1:06-cv-00033-AET-GWC   Document #: 78   Filed: 05/16/08   Page 2 of 3
Dupigny v. Colt Atlantic Services, Inc.
2006-CV-0033
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Memorandum [sic] in [sic] Reconsideration
Page 3
Pennsylvania discovered that many courts “require some heightened showing of relevance
or need.”  Id. at 176.  The court then found that the defendant seeking the disclosure had
failed to demonstrate the relevance of the Release, that the defendant there simply made
a “ broad assertion that the Release could lead to admissible evidence . . . without any
detail or analysis . . . .”  Id. at 176.
In contrast, in the matter at bar, Defendant demonstrated its need for disclosure of
the settlement agreement to ensure that any recovery in favor of Plaintiff against it is not
duplicative.  The Court found the settlement agreement ordered to be produced to be
relevant to this matter and admissible.  Thus, the Methacton School Dist. case is
distinguishable from the facts presented in the matter at bar.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Memorandum [sic] in [sic] Reconsideration of Court Order Dated
March 18, 2008 (Docket No. 74) is DENIED.
2.
The Court’s Order Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Docket No.
66), entered March 18, 2008, is AFFIRMED.
ENTER:
Dated: May 16, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:06-cv-00033-AET-GWC   Document #: 78   Filed: 05/16/08   Page 3 of 3