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)

Download PDF
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

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?