Quinn et al v. Avco Corporation et al

Filing 182

MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Motion to Reconsider Memorandum Order (D.I. 171 ) (D.I. 174 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/26/2018. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JOANE. QUINN, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
JAMES ALBERT QUINN, Deceased;
JAMES ARNOLD QUINN; ELIZABETH
QUINN; STEPHANE PHEILSTICKER;
SARAH QUINN and ERIN QUINN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 1: 15-cv-01005-RGA

AVCO CORPORATION, LYCOMING
ENGINES, CONTINENTAL MOTORS,
INC., TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL
MOTORS, INC.; BENDIX
CORPORATION, ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC.,
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
JOHN DOE 1:.50, and JOHN DOE 51-100,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Presently before me is Defendant Honeywell International Inc.' s Motion to Reconsider
Memorandum Order (D.I. 171). (D.I. 174). Honeywell and Defendant Continental Motors, Inc.
("Continental") have briefed the issues. (D.I. 174, 181). For the reasons set out below,
Honeywell's motion is DENIED.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on November 2, 2015 following the November 5, 2013 crash
ofaPiperPA-32R-301 aircraft which killed thepilotandaflightinstructor. (D.I. 148

at,r,r 1-2).

The complaint contains claims against Defendant Honeywell, manufacturer of the airplane's
autopilot system; Defendants AVCO Corp. and Lycoming Engines, manufacturers of the
airplane's engine; and Continental, manufacturer of the engine's single drive dual magneto. (Id

at~ 2). Plaintiffs settled their claims against Honeywell in April of 2018. (D.I. 139 at~ 2).
Defendant Continental requested that Plaintiffs produce copies of their settlement agreements on
May 31, 2018 and July 27, 2018. (Id at ~6). On August 14, 2018, I entered an order requiring
Plaintiffs to produce settlement agreements related to the airplane crash unless the settling parties
intervened within two weeks. (D.I. 134). Honeywell filed a motion to intervene on August 24,
2018. (D.I. 139). On October 25, 2018, I entered an order granting Honeywell's motion to
intervene, but denying its request that I deny Defendant Continental's request for production of
Honeywell's Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release ("Agreement"). (D.I. 171).
The present motion requests that I reconsider my decision to require Plaintiffs to produce the
Agreement prior to trial. (D.I. 174). Alternatively, it requests that I instruct Plaintiffs to produce
a redacted version of the Agreement. (Id.).
The purpose of a motion for reargument or reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann,

Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). [M]otions for reconsideration 'should not be
used to rehash arguments already briefed."' BP Amoco Chem. Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 200 F. Supp.
2d 429,432 (D. Del. 2002) (quoting Schering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F.Supp.2d 293,295 (D.
Del. 1998)). To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a party must demonstrate one of the
following: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence
that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677.
Honeywell makes the same arguments it made in its original motion and has not
identified a clear error of law or fact. Specifically, Honeywell argues that production of the
Agreement is premature. (D.I. 174 at 4). It made this argument previously. (D.I. 139 at~ 35-

2

37). Honeywell also argues that I should allow it to produce a redacted version of the
Agreement. (D.I. 174 at 5). It also made this argument previously. (D.I. 156 at 5-6). I did not
misapprehend Honeywell's arguments in the first instance. I simply found them unpersuasive.
Defendant Continental mad,e a particularized showing that the Agreement is likely to lead to
admissible evidence. The particularized showing standard does not impose an additional
requirement that production be timed to coordinate with the precise moment a party might use a
settlement agreement. Moreover, I continue to believe that the Parties' protective order
sufficiently protects Honeywell's unique interests in non-disclosure.
Thus, I DENY Defendant Honeywell International Inc.'s Motion to Reconsider
Memorandum Order (D.I. 174). Plaintiffs should produce the Agreement, subject to the
protective order, within one week of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this

?C day ofNovember 2018.

3