Sparta Insurance Co et al v. Garfias et al

Filing 126

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL - denying 119 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (CC, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

SPARTA INSURANCE, CO; et al.,
NO: CV-12-5051-RMP
Plaintiffs,

8
v.
9
10

BENJAMIN GARFIAS, individual, et
al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER ORDER ON MOTION
TO COMPEL

Defendants.

11
12
13

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order

14

on Motion to Compel and Objection to Defendants’ Application for Attorney Fees.

15

ECF No. 119. The Court has reviewed the motion and response and is fully

16

informed.

17

On October 2, 2013, the Court granted in part Defendants’ Motion to

18

Compel Discovery and for Sanctions. ECF No. 113. The Court found that

19

Plaintiffs’ discovery responses were sufficiently vague and misleading to warrant

20

granting relief; therefore, the Court allowed limited additional discovery regarding

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER ON MOTION TO
COMPEL ~ 1

1

Plaintiff Larry Lamberson’s drag racing activities and awarded Defendants fees

2

and costs incurred in bringing the motion. ECF No. 113 at 2, 3.

3

Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider this order because of additional

4

evidence that Plaintiffs found in earlier discovery responses. In an expert

5

disclosure served on Defendants on March 7, 2013, ECF No. 120 at 1-2, Dr.

6

Robert Calhoun stated: “The patient reports that he did drive his car at Firebird

7

Raceway. He reportedly did not do any of the mechanical work on his car[,]” ECF

8

No. 120-2 at 2. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ motion to compel and for

9

sanctions would have failed in light of this evidence showing that Plaintiff

10
11

Lamberson disclosed his drag racing activity.
Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function. “‘[T]he major grounds

12

that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the

13

availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest

14

injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir.

15

1989) (quoting 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and

16

Procedure § 4478 at 790). Such motions are not the proper vehicle for offering

17

evidence or theories of law that were available to the party at the time of the initial

18

ruling. Fay Corp. v. Bat Holdings I, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 307, 309 (W.D. Wash.

19

1987).

20

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER ON MOTION TO
COMPEL ~ 2

1

Plaintiffs have not adequately supported their motion for reconsideration.

2

Dr. Calhoun’s report is not newly available to Plaintiffs, nor do Plaintiffs explain

3

why a brief statement in a 183-page expert disclosure, ECF No. 120 at 2, would

4

remedy earlier discovery responses that the Court has found to be vague and

5

misleading.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

The Court will consider in a separate order Plaintiffs’ objection to
Defendants’ application for attorney fees.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration, ECF. No. 119, is DENIED.
The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to
counsel.
DATED this 18th day of November 2013.

13
14
15

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
Chief United States District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER ON MOTION TO
COMPEL ~ 3