Bolding et al v. Banner Bank

Filing 222

ORDER denying Defendant's 212 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MW)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

_______________________________________
)
KELLY BOLDING, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
BANNER BANK,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No. C17-0601RSL
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Banner Bank’s motion for partial

14

reconsideration of an order finding that defendant spoliated evidence. Motions for

15

reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted only upon a “showing of

16

manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been

17

brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). Defendant has

18

not met its burden.

19

Defendant argues that the Court manifestly erred in finding that (a) defendant knew or

20

should have known that evidence showing when AmericanWest Bank (“AWB”) mortgage loan

21

officers were engaged in work-related activities - such as their emails and calendars - was

22

relevant to a threatened overtime claim as of July 2016, (b) defendant destroyed relevant emails

23

and calendars after July 2016, and (c) defendant destroyed all emails and calendars related to

24

AWB mortgage loan officers who did not join Banner Bank following AWB’s acquisition. There

25

is no error in the first two findings. As to the third, any misapprehension of the record with

26

regards to the scope of the destruction of AWB records does not require reconsideration. The
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

relief granted for the spoliation of evidence is that defendant will be precluded from contesting a

2

class member’s estimate of overtime hours worked as to any month in which plaintiffs have been

3

deprived of the employee’s emails, calendar account, or both. Thus, to the extent Banner

4

preserved and produced the email and calendar accounts of AWB employees, it will be permitted

5

to rely on those documents to contest the class members’ calculations.

6
7

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

8
9

Dated this 8th day of June, 2020.

10

A

11

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

-2-