Teras Chartering, LLC v. Hyupjin Shipping Co., Ltd

Filing 72

ORDER denying 63 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.(SSM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 TERAS CHARTERING, LLC, 7 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 HYUPJIN SHIPPING CO., LTD, 11 Defendant. 12 ) ) CASE NO. C16-0188RSM ) ) ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) ) 13 14 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. 15 Dkt. #63. 1 On August 14, 2017, Defendant filed its motion asking the Court to reconsider its 16 prior Order granting in part and denying in part its motion for summary judgment. Id. The Court 17 then requested a response from Plaintiff, which has since been filed. Dkts. #67 and #69, #70 and 18 19 #71. 20 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h). “The court will ordinarily deny 21 such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of 22 new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 23 reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). In this case, the Court is not persuaded that it should 24 25 reconsider its prior Order. 26 1 27 28 The Court acknowledges that Defendant subsequently submitted a praecipe to replace its motion, the supporting Declaration, and the exhibits thereto with corrected versions of those documents. Dkt. #68. The Court has reviewed those filings and will cite to them where appropriate. ORDER PAGE - 1 1 Defendant first argues that the Court committed manifest error in its prior ruling because 2 it relied on inadmissible evidence presented by Plaintiff to conclude that a question of fact existed 3 with respect to the vessel’s readiness. Dkt. #68-1 at 1-7. Specifically, Defendant argues that two 4 exhibits considered by the Court were unauthenticated, and therefore inadmissible, and that those 5 two exhibits also constituted inadmissible hearsay. Id. 6 7 With respect to authenticity, the Court finds Defendant’s argument disingenuous. First, 8 Defendant has already admitted during discovery that one of the documents is authentic. Dkt. 9 #71, Ex. 1 at 2. Second, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the documents at issue have been 10 properly authenticated by review of their contents and in consideration of the context in which 11 they were used. See Dkt. #69 at 5. Likewise, the Court is also not persuaded by Defendant that 12 13 the documents at issue are hearsay. Both of the documents fall within the hearsay exception 14 under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). 15 The Court also finds that Defendant has not present new facts or legal authority which 16 could not have been brought to the Court’s earlier attention with reasonable diligence. Indeed, 17 18 Defendant was made aware of Plaintiff’s proposed trial witnesses on May 26, 2017, prior to the 19 due date of its supplemental briefing on summary judgment. Dkt. #68-3. Further, the argument 20 presented by Defendant in the instant motion with respect to the Court’s interpretation of the 21 effect of the Booking Note’s Notice of Readiness provisions was already presented to the Court 22 on the motion for summary judgment, and the Court rejected that argument for the reasons set 23 24 25 26 forth previously. See Dkts. #68-1 at 7-10 and #62. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #63) is DENIED. 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 2 1 DATED this 20th day of September, 2017. 2 A 3 4 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 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?