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 CLARIFICATION
Plaintiff asks the Court to clarify its March 24, 2021, discovery order. (Order, ECF
No. 176.) Plaintiff specifically asks the Court to clarify whether the order, which requires
Plaintiff to produce certain documents of Plaintiff’s pricing and purchasing of lobsters, is
limited to purchases of lobsters, is limited to the lobsters from the BJ Co-op and Trenton
Bridge. (Motion, ECF No. 177.)
As Defendants note, Plaintiff’s motion is essentially a request for the Court to revisit
or reconsider the discovery order. That is, Plaintiff argues for a limitation on the scope of
the order. To be entitled to reconsideration, a party must demonstrate “(1) the availability
of new evidence not previously available, (2) an intervening change in controlling law, or
(3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.” Int’l Ass’n of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Verso Corp., 121 F. Supp. 3d 201, 217 (D. Me. 2015)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 180 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff has not demonstrated a basis for reconsideration. Because the prices
charged and paid for lobsters are relevant to Plaintiff’s claimed damages as well as
Plaintiff’s assertions of misrepresentation, the Court discerns no reason to reconsider its
decision. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for clarification.
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 7th day of April, 2021.
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 180 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>