Mark Vitalis, v. Sun Constructors, Inc.

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
MARK VITALIS, 5
5
Plaintiff, 5 2005-CV-0101
v. 5
5
SUN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., 5
HOVENSA, L.L.C., 5
RICHARD “DOC” LAGNER, and 5
EXCEL GROUP, INC., 5
5
Defendants. 5
____________________________________5
TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Charles E. Engeman, Esq.
Linda J. Blair, Esq.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT HOVENSA’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 7, 2007[,] ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Motion for Partial Reconsideration
of May 7, 2007[,] Order (the “Order”) (Docket No. 131) of Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.
(HOVENSA). Plaintiff filed an opposition to said Defendant’s motion, and said
Defendant filed a reply thereto.
Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3, parties may seek reconsideration
of an order or decision of the 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. Defendant HOVENSA asks the Court to reconsider its
Case: 1:05-cv-00101-WAL-EAH Document #: 212 Filed: 06/13/08 Page 1 of 5

Vitalis v. Sun Constructors, Inc.
2005-CV-0101
Order Denying Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion For Partial Reconsideration
Page 2
1. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.4 was amended and now is Rule 7.3.
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel said Defendant (Docket No. 128), entered
May 7, 2007, “‘to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Motion at 1 (citing
LRCi 7.4 ).1
DISCUSSION
It is widely recognized that the ”’purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Smith
v. City of Chester, 155 F.R.D. 95, 96 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (citation omitted). While HOVENSA
argues that reconsideration of the Court’s May 7, 2007, Order is necessary to correct
clear error or manifest injustice, said Defendant does not elucidate exactly how the
Order is erroneous. HOVENSA has cited no authority, contradicting the Court’s
holding, that demonstrates a “manifest error of law.” Therefore, reconsideration is not
warranted on that basis.
Said Defendant supports its contention by arguing that both parties had
interpreted the Demand for Production No. 18 (the Demand) to be limited to positions
of co-Defendant Sun Constructors, Inc., (Sun) and that the Demand is grossly
overbroad, burdensome, and irrelevant to a claim or defense of any party. Motion at 4-
5.
Case: 1:05-cv-00101-WAL-EAH Document #: 212 Filed: 06/13/08 Page 2 of 5

Vitalis v. Sun Constructors, Inc.
2005-CV-0101
Order Denying Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion For Partial Reconsideration
Page 3
There is no evidence to prove said Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff had
interpreted his own Demand to be limited to positions of Sun. Sun is not mentioned in
the Demand, and Plaintiff specifically requested documents regarding HOVENSA’s
involvement, etc., “for the positions of carpenter, or supervisory position at the Hess
Refinery”. Demand for Production No. 18. Plaintiff’s request did not specify
documents regarding positions only with Sun. Said Defendant assumes that Plaintiff
interpreted the Demand to mean something contrary to its express words because
Plaintiff allegedly did not take issue with said Defendant’s own interpretation of the
Demand in its response. Yet, Plaintiff contested said Defendant’s incomplete response
and requested production of all documents responsive to the Demand. Furthermore,
this matter has already been litigated when said Defendant first attempted to limit its
response to positions with Sun. “Motions for reconsideration should not be used as a
vehicle for rehashing and expanding upon arguments previously presented or merely
as an opportunity for getting in one last shot at an issue that has been decided.” Nicholas
v. Wyndham Int’l., Inc., No. 01-CV-147, 2002 WL 32359953 at *1 (D.V.I. Nov. 18, 2002).
This Court already made a decision on this matter when it pointed to the express words
of the Demand and ordered said Defendant to fully respond to its requests in the May 7,
2007[,] Order.
Case: 1:05-cv-00101-WAL-EAH Document #: 212 Filed: 06/13/08 Page 3 of 5

Vitalis v. Sun Constructors, Inc.
2005-CV-0101
Order Denying Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion For Partial Reconsideration
Page 4
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) permits parties to discover information as
to any nonprivileged matter that is “relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Id.
Relevance has been defined broadly to “encompass any matter that bears on, or that
reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in
the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Irving Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). In a Title VII
case, the plaintiff may meet the initial burden of proof by showing the existence of a
pattern of discriminatory hiring and practice. Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., Inc., 424
U.S. 747, 751 (1976). The information a plaintiff in a Title VII case needs in order to
show a pattern of discrimination requires that the parameters of discovery in a Title VII
case be broader than the facts of the individual case. Gaul v. ZEP Mfg. Co., No. Civ. A.
03-2439, 2004 WL 231298 at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2004) (quoting Clark v. Mellon Bank, Civ.
A. No. 92-CV-4823, 1993 WL 170950 (E.D. Pa. May 11, 1993)).
In the instant case, Plaintiff is trying to demonstrate a pattern of discrimination
by HOVENSA through said Defendant’s control over the hiring of its own employees
and those of other independent contractors. As a result, the requested documents in the
Demand are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim, and any burden on said Defendant as
a result of providing such documents is outweighed by the Plaintiff’s claim. Clarke v.
Mellon Bank, N.A., No. 92-CV-4823, 1993 WL 170950 at *3 (E.D. Pa. May 11, 1993)
Case: 1:05-cv-00101-WAL-EAH Document #: 212 Filed: 06/13/08 Page 4 of 5

Vitalis v. Sun Constructors, Inc.
2005-CV-0101
Order Denying Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion For Partial Reconsideration
Page 5
(holding that the court must balance the relevance of the information against the burden
on the defendant). Furthermore, in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973), the Supreme Court recognized that statistical data is relevant to establish that the
reason given for firing an employee is a pretext for a real discriminatory purpose.
Therefore, documents recording the history of said Defendant’s influence, etc., in hiring
for position of carpenter, and supervisory position is necessary to establish part of
Plaintiff’s Title VII case.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED
1. Defendant HOVENSA’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of May 7,
2007[,] Order (Docket No. 131) is DENIED.
2. The Court’s Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant
HOVENSA (Docket No. 128), entered May 7, 2007, is AFFIRMED.
ENTER:
Dated: June 13, 2008 /s/
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00101-WAL-EAH Document #: 212 Filed: 06/13/08 Page 5 of 5