Premier Harvest et al v. AXIS Surplus Insurance Company et al

Filing 61

ORDER denying Defendants' 59 Motion for Reconsideration. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (SWT)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

PREMIER HARVEST LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13

MINUTE ORDER

v.
AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

CASE NO. C17-0784-JCC

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.

16 Coughenour, United States District Judge:
17

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No.

18 59) of the Court’s order denying Defendants’ motion to quash (Dkt. No. 58). Motions for
19 reconsideration are generally disfavored. W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1). Reconsideration is
20 appropriate only if there is “manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal
21 authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable
22 diligence.” Id. “A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask the court to rethink what
23 the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” U.S. v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d
24 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
25

Defendants argue that the Court overlooked the declaration of Stephen Lajewski, AXIS

26 Surplus Insurance Company’s Vice President of Claims, describing the anonymous tip the
MINUTE ORDER
C17-0784-JCC
PAGE - 1

1 company received that Plaintiffs may be fraudulently inflating their claim. (Dkt. No. 24 ¶ 6.) But
2 Defendants made no reference to Mr. Lajewski’s declaration in their motion to quash or related
3 exhibits. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 52, 53.) The Court need not consider facts that could have
4 been brought to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. W.D. Wash. Local Civ.
5 R. 7(h)(1). Further, even if the Court were to consider Mr. Lajewski’s declaration, it is
6 insufficient to overcome the presumption that documents created prior to a final decision on an
7 insured’s claim are not protected. Lains v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. C14-1982-JCC, slip op.
8 at 2–3 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 1, 2015).
9
10

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 59) is DENIED.
DATED this 13th day of December 2017.

11

William M. McCool
Clerk of Court

12

s/Tomas Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MINUTE ORDER
C17-0784-JCC
PAGE - 2