The plaintiff, Janet Stimson, filed a Motion for Reargument on behalf of her husband, Gary Stimson, following the court’s decision granting summary judgment on behalf of the defendant, J-MM, on the issue of product identification.
The plaintiff alleged that
- The court misapprehended the facts relevant to the decedent’s identification of J-MM’s A/C pipe
- The deposition testimony of a J-MM employee from an unrelated 2014 case constitutes newly discovered evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding product identification
The court was also provided with an unrelated decision where the court denied J-MM’s summary judgment based on different alleged exposures.
The court noted that Superior Court Rule 59(3) provides that a party may file a motion for reargument “within five days after the filing of the Court’s opinion or decision.” However, “Delaware law places a heavy burden on a plaintiff seeking relief pursuant to Rule 59. Further, a movant seeking reargument must show that ‘the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or … has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision.’” The movant “has the burden of demonstrating newly discovered evidence, a change in the law or manifest injustice.”
The court ruled that it did not misapprehend the facts in this matter. The decedent was the only product identification witness in this matter. He identified exposure to A/C pipe with “Johns Manville” stenciled on its exterior. J-MM was a successor entity to Johns-Manville after the latter’s bankruptcy. It was undisputed that the only Johns-Manville marked pipe sold by J-MM was confined to leftover stock from a single yard that was sold and distributed over a three-month period. Based on the timing of the decedent’s alleged exposure, the court stated it was only speculation that he came in contact with any pipe originating from that three months of leftover stock. The court further noted that J-MM manufactured and continued to sell A/C pipe. However, the record before the court established that all such pipe had “J-M” stenciled on its exterior. The decedent never identified exposure to A/C pipe with “J-M” stenciled on its exterior. Accordingly, the record did not support a reasonable inference, even given the proper deference, that to the preponderance of the evidence, he was exposed to pipe for which J-MM was responsible.
Lastly, while the plaintiff providing deposition testimony from a previous 2014 case is new to this matter, it is not newly discovered evidence for the basis of a motion for reargument. That deposition occurred five years ago and the plaintiff’s counsel was aware of that deposition. Therefore, that evidence should have been provided in the original motion.
Based on the foregoing, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reargument.
Read the case decision here.