United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion for
reconsideration (Dkt. No. 42) of the Court's order
granting Plaintiff's motion to compel and for sanctions
for spoliation and discovery abuses (Dkt. No. 39). Having
thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the
relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary
and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained
Court previously set forth the underlying facts of this case
and will not restate them here. (See Dkt. No. 34.)
On July 18, 2019, Plaintiff moved for an order compelling
Defendant to provide complete and accurate discovery
responses and imposing sanctions for spoliation of evidence
and discovery abuses. (Dkt. No. 28.) Plaintiff's motion
sought, inter alia, an order compelling Defendant to
provide complete responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories
and requests for production pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(a)(3)(B) and awarding Plaintiff monetary
sanctions of $5, 000 to offset the “significant legal
costs [incurred] to pursue accurate and complete discovery,
including . . . the preparation of this motion.”
(Id. at 11, 13.) In concluding its motion to compel,
Plaintiff reiterated its request for monetary sanctions
premised on Defendant's failure to provide requested
discovery. (Id.) Defendant did not address
Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions in its
response brief. (See Dkt. No. 30 at 10-12.)
August 13, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion.
(Dkt. No. 39.) In its order, the Court found that Defendant
spoliated the Mt. Vernon baler and concluded that an adverse
jury instruction regarding Defendant's spoliation was an
appropriate sanction. (See id. at 4-7.) The Court
also found that discovery sanctions were warranted due to
Defendant's failure to timely disclose discovery and
accordingly awarded Plaintiff its requested monetary
sanctions. (See id. at 7-8.)
moves for reconsideration of the Court's order, arguing
that the Court committed manifest error in imposing its
spoliation sanction and awarding Plaintiff attorney fees.
(See generally Dkt. No. 42.) The Court called for a
response from Plaintiff only as to Defendant's challenge
to the Court's award of attorney fees. (Dkt. No. 44.)
for reconsideration are generally disfavored. W.D. Wash.
Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1). Reconsideration is appropriate only
where there is “manifest error in the prior ruling or a
showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have
been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with
reasonable diligence.” Id. “A motion for
reconsideration should not be used to ask the court to
rethink what the court had already thought through-rightly or
wrongly.” Premier Harvest LLC v. AXIS Surplus Ins.
Co., No. C17-0784-JCC, Dkt. No. 61 at 1 (W.D. Wash.
2017) (quoting U.S. v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112,
1116 (D. Ariz. 1998)).
contends that the Court committed manifest error when it
found that Plaintiff is entitled to an adverse jury
instruction following Defendant's spoliation of the Mt.
Vernon baler. (Dkt. No. 42 at 10-13.) Defendant argues that
the Court erred by looking only to Defendant's conscious
disregard of its discovery obligations to determine that
Defendant's degree of fault warranted an adverse jury
instruction. (See id. at 10-12.) But the Court's
order looked beyond Defendant's conscious disregard in
finding that an adverse jury instruction was warranted.
Specifically, the Court considered: Defendant's exclusive
control over the Mt. Vernon baler; Defendant's
substantial prior notice that it had an obligation to
preserve the Mt. Vernon baler; and Defendant's subsequent
conscious disregard of that obligation when it sold the Mt.
Vernon baler for scrap. (See Dkt. No. 39 at 2-3, 6.)
Defendant's remaining arguments opposing the Court's
evaluation of Defendant's degree of fault simply restate
those it raised in its response to Plaintiff's original
motion. (Compare Dkt. No. 42 at 11-12, with
Dkt. No. 30 at 8-9.) Thus, Defendant has not identified a
manifest error in the Court's evaluation of
Defendant's degree of fault in spoliating the Mt. Vernon
baler. See Premier Harvest, No. C17-0784-JCC, Dkt.
No. 61 at 1; W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1).
also challenges the Court's evaluation of the degree of
prejudice to Plaintiff resulting from Defendant's
spoliation of the Mt. Vernon baler. (Dkt. No. 42 at 12-13.)
Defendant merely reiterates the arguments it raised in
response to Plaintiff's original motion, and asks the
Court to reach a different conclusion at the second time of
asking. (Compare Dkt. No. 42 at 12-13, with
Dkt. No. 30 at 10.) Defendant's request that the Court
revisit the same arguments it previously considered is
insufficient to warrant reconsideration of the Court's
decision. See Premier Harvest, No. C17-0784-JCC,
Dkt. No. 61 at 1; W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1).
Defendant has not identified a manifest error in the
Court's determination that an adverse jury instruction is
an appropriate sanction for Defendant's spoliation of the
Mt. Vernon baler. Defendant's motion for reconsideration
is DENIED on this ground.