LOBSTER 207 LLC v. PETTEGROW et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
LOBSTER 207, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) 1:19-cv-00552-LEW
)
WARREN B. PETTEGROW, et al., )
)
Defendants )
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendants Anthony Pettegrow, Josette Pettegrow, and Warren Pettegrow ask the
Court to reconsider the portion its September 16, 2020, Order on Discovery Issues (Order,
ECF No. 121), by which the Court ordered Defendants to produce their redacted income
tax returns for the years 2017-2019. (Motion, ECF No. 124.) The Court denies the motion.
DISCUSSION
Defendants maintain that the tax returns are not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims,
particularly as to the claims against Defendant Warren Pettegrow, and suggest that the
order is inconsistent with the views expressed by the Court during a telephonic hearing on
the issue.
“A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to force the court to think twice; it is
not an opportunity for the losing party simply to press his unsuccessful arguments a second
time in the hope that, by repetition, the court will see it that way. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists
& Aerospace Workers v. Verso Corp., 121 F. Supp. 3d 201, 217 (D. Me. 2015) (internal
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 137 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
quotation marks and citations omitted). “Ordinarily, a motion for reconsideration is
appropriate only if a moving party presents newly discovered evidence, if there has been
an intervening change in the law, or if the moving party can demonstrate that the original
decision was based on a manifest error of law or was clearly unjust.” In re Hannaford
Bros. Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 660 F. Supp. 2d 94, 97 (D. Me. 2009).
To the extent Defendants maintain that the Court made a ruling during the hearing
and that the Court’s order is inconsistent with the ruling, Defendants’ argument is
unavailing. First, at the conclusion of the telephonic hearing, the Court made clear that the
parties’ arguments during the hearing required further consideration and review of the
record by the Court. Any suggestion that the Court’s observation in the context of a
question of counsel constitutes a ruling or must define the scope of the Court’s order lacks
merit. Furthermore, the Court does not construe the excerpt of the hearing transcript
referenced in Defendants’ motion as inconsistent with the Court’s discovery order. As
reflected by the Court’s order and as suggested in the Court’s question in the excerpt,1 the
relevant information is the income generated by Defendants Pettegrow through the lobster-
related businesses. Consistent with the Court’s observation during the hearing that Plaintiff
is “not necessarily entitled” to learn of income that could be construed as unrelated to a
violation of the Noncompetition Agreement (Motion at 3-4), in its order, the Court allowed
Defendants to “redact the income and expenses on any tax return schedules for any
1 In the excerpt, the Court asked counsel why a redaction of the income and expenses from any entities that
are unrelated to a potential violation of the Noncompetition Agreement would be inappropriate.
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 137 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
business that is unrelated to the Pettegrows’ lobster restaurant or lobster retail business.”
(Order at 1.)
As to Defendants’ further challenge to the order, Defendants cite no new evidence
or intervening change in the law to support their request for reconsideration. Rather,
Defendants point to the same arguments (e.g., the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint,
relevance) in support of their request for reconsideration as they made during the telephonic
hearing. As noted above, a motion for reconsideration “is not an opportunity for the losing
party simply to press his unsuccessful arguments a second time.” Int’l Ass’n of Machinists
& Aerospace Workers v. Verso Corp., 121 F. Supp. 3d at 217.
To the extent Defendants contend the order is “clearly unjust” as to Defendant
Warren Pettegrow because he is not a party to the Noncompetition Agreement cited by the
Court as a basis for its order, Defendants’ argument is not persuasive. Regardless of
whether Defendant Warren Pettegrow is a party to the agreement, the gist of Plaintiff’s
complaint is that Defendants Pettegrow worked in concert to generate revenue through
efforts that violated common law, statutory law, and the Noncompetition Agreement.
Indeed, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for attachment, the Court (Walker, J.)
concluded that Plaintiff was likely “to substantiate its claim that [Anthony Pettegrow,
Josette Pettegrow, Warren Pettegrow, Poseidon Charters, Inc., and Trenton Bridge Lobster
Pound, Inc.] abused Warren Pettegrow’s position of trust as CEO of [Plaintiff] to deprive
[Plaintiff] of revenue in the amount of $1,438,181.23.” (Memorandum of Decision on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attachment and Trustee Process at 2-3, ECF No. 75.) Under the
circumstances, the income of Defendants Pettegrow, including Defendant Warren
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 137 Filed 11/23/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Pettegrow, from lobster-related businesses/efforts is relevant to the claims and defenses in
this action. The Court’s discovery order, therefore, is not “clearly unjust.” 2
In sum, “[t]he granting of a motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy
which should be used sparingly,” and Defendants have failed to establish that
reconsideration of the Court’s discovery order is warranted or appropriate. Palmer v.
Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court denies Defendants’ motion for
reconsideration.
NOTICE
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 23rd day of November, 2020
2 The issue for the Court was whether the tax returns likely included information relevant to the claims and
defenses asserted in this action. Defendants’ income/revenue generated from lobster-related businesses is
relevant. Under the order, Defendants may redact information regarding income and expenses from sources
other than lobster-related businesses. Because the Court is not privy to the tax returns, the Court is unaware
of whether any other information in the returns is appropriate for redaction. If Defendants believe there are
other specific items on the tax returns that should be redacted, Defendants can request a conference with
the Court if they are unable to resolve the issue through consultation with Plaintiff’s counsel.
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 137 Filed 11/23/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>