Willis et al v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. et al

Filing 361

ORDER Denying Defendant John Crane's 360 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 8/18/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 DONALD WILLIS AND VIOLA WILLIS Plaintiffs, 14 15 v. 16 17 BUFFALO PUMPS INC., et al. Defendants. 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 12cv744 BTM (DHB) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JOHN CRANE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 19 20 Defendant John Crane, Inc. (“John Crane”) has filed a motion for 21 reconsideration of this Court’s order denying John Crane’s motion for summary 22 judgment. (Doc. 360). For the following reasons, the motion for reconsideration is 23 DENIED. 24 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 25 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 26 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 27 Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A party's 28 failure to file documents in connection with the underlying motion or opposition does 1 1 not turn late-filed documents into “newly discovered evidence.” Id. “Evidence is not 2 ‘newly discovered” under the Federal Rules if it . . . could have been discovered with 3 reasonable diligence.” Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.3d 4 208, 212 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Furthermore, “the newly discovered 5 evidence must be of such magnitude that production of it earlier would have been 6 likely to change the disposition of the case.” Id. at 211. 7 Defendant argues that it has located new evidence that another defendant in 8 this case, Crane Co., produced gasket material that was branded “Crane,” and thus 9 Plaintiff’s identification that he was working with “Crane” products could plausibly 10 mean he worked with either of Defendants’ products. Therefore, he cannot prove 11 threshold exposure to John Crane’s products by a preponderance of the evidence. 12 Defendant’s new evidence is a series of images from a Crane Co. catalog 13 published in 1960 (Doc. 360-5, Russell Decl. Exhibit C), and images from an 14 unknown source culled from another asbestos-related product liability action in 15 California Superior Court, Schildknegt v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., Case No. BC 16 503723. (Doc. 360-6, Russell Decl. Exhibit D). The exhibits appear to depict gasket 17 material that is branded both “Cranite” and “Crane,” or “Crane Co.” 18 Defendant has failed to explain why it could not have discovered this evidence 19 with reasonable diligence and produced it in support of its motion for summary 20 judgment. Notably, Defendant filed their motion for summary judgment fifty-three 21 years after Exhibit C was published in 1960. Moreover, even if the evidence could 22 not have been discovered with due diligence before Defendant filed their motion for 23 summary judgment, the Court nonetheless finds that it does not change the outcome 24 of Defendant’s motion for the reasons outlined in the Court’s denial of Defendant’s 25 motion. (Doc. 356). Furthermore, Defendant has failed to advance any evidence that 26 Crane Co. supplied the gaskets depicted in the exhibits to the U.S. Navy during the 27 relevant period. The fact that Crane Co. manufactured such gaskets at some point in 28 its history, standing alone, does not meaningfully impact the Court’s analysis. 2 1 Accordingly, the evidence is not “newly discovered” and does not warrant 2 reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for summary 3 judgment. 4 Therefore, John Crane’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: August 18, 2014 8 ______________________________________ BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge United States District Court 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?