MS Amlin Marine NV v. Delta Marine Industries Inc

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 MS AMLIN MARINE NV, SYNDICATE CASE NO. 2:23-cv-14 8 0457, SYNDICATE 1969, SYNDICATE 2791, SYNDICATE 5000, CONVEX ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 INSURANCE UK LTD, and RECONSIDERATION UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S B1098M203407, 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 DELTA MARINE INDUSTRIES INC., MARINE TRAVELIFT INC, KENDRICK EQUIPMENT LTD, and

17 Defendants. 18 Defendant Delta Marine Industries, Inc. requests reconsideration of the 19 Court’s Omnibus Order, Dkt. No. 177. “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” 20 LCR 7(h)(1), and “will be denied absent a showing of either manifest error in the 21 Court’s prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority” that could not have 22 been brought to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence, Hempel v. 23 1 United States, 2002 WL 1987644, at *3 (W.D. Wash. June 25, 2002) (citing LCR

9 7(h)(1)). Whether to grant reconsideration is left to the Court’s discretion. Navajo 3 Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d

4 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Delta has met neither requirement, the Court

5 || DENIES its motion. Dkt. No. 178.

G That said, two points are worth clarifying. First, contrary to Delta’s

7 suggestion, the Court’s prior Order did not establish OSHA regulations as superior 8 to WISHA regulations in defining the relevant standard of care at trial. Rather, 9 such regulations may be admitted as “some evidence” of the applicable standard.

10 Dkt. No. 177 at 21-22. Second, the Court considered Plaintiffs’ request for

11 spoliation sanctions as a discovery matter under Rule 37. Jd. at 25-34. The Court’s

12 Order made no determination about the “spoliation of evidence” as a standalone

13 || cause of action.

14 Dated this 4th day of February, 2025.

16 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23