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)
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?