Burchette v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. et al, No. 1:2008cv08786 - Document 93 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, that Plaintiff's motion for review of the Clerk's taxation of costs is granted in part and denied in part. And, Defendants1 motion for review of the Clerk's taxation of costs is denied. Plaintiff shall the refore pay costs in the amount of $2,222.15, which includes service fees of $75.00 and the cost of the transcript of Plaintiff's deposition, in the amount of $2,147.15. Additional relief as set forth in this Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz on 9/22/10) (pl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ................................... X DULAZIA BURCHETTE, Plaintiff, 08 Civ. 8786 (RMB)(THK) : -againstMEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER : ABERCROMBIE et al., & FITCH STORES, INC., AND : Defendants. ................................... X THEODORE H. KATZ, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. it This employment discrimination action was resolved when District Court (Hon. Richard M. Berman, U. S.D.J. ) he gran/t ed Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plainti f's 1 1 + 1 race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environ ent claims, brought Abercrombie & under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.' See Burchette Fitch Stores. Inc., No. 08 Civ. 8786 (RMB)(THK), 010 WL 1948322 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2010). Judgment was entered on ~a~ Ill, i On June 10, 2010, as the prevailing parties, Defendants f'led lthe a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of the Court. On June 24, 2010, Clerk filed a Bill of Costs against Plaintiff in the sum of I See $2,734.97, and it was entered as a judgment on June 25, 2010. Docket Entry # 65.) 1 On July 1, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion for Taxatio of The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdicti over Plaintiff's state law claims. Dockets.Justia.com C o s t s , s e e k i n g c e r t a i n c o s t s t h a t t h e C l e r k had d i s a l l o w e d , a t dI on J u l y 6 , 2010, P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a Motion f o r P a r t i a l Review of f he t Clerk's Taxation of Costs, challenging c e r t a i n c o s t s t h a t t h e C 1 r k The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d b o t h m o t i o n s w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e hadtaxed. Individ.~al b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e C o u r t ' s (See Memorandum Endorsed Rules p r i o r t o f i l i n g t h e i r motions. O r d e r s , d a t e d J u l y 6 and 1 5 , 2 0 1 0 . ) The p a r t i e s were s u b s e q u e n t l y lo g r a n t e d l e a v e t o r e f i l e t h e i r motions, t h e y d i d s o , and t h e moti ns were r e f e r r e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r d e c i s i o n . In her motion, of paying relieved resources; and Plaintiff argues any costs because (2) the award of that: of costs her to t r a n s c r i p t o f a c o u r t c o n f e r e n c e was i m p r o p e r . argue t h a t : (1) s h e should be meager financial Defendants for the Defendants, i n t u r n , (1) P l a i n t i f f ' s a p p e a l of t h e award o f c o s t s a n d m o t i o n f o r r e v i e w of t h e award of c e r t a i n c o s t s s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d a s untimely; (2) Plaintiff has e s t a b l i s h i n g f i n a n c i a l hardship; failed to meet her burden of (3) t h e C l e r k properly taxed costs f o r o b t a i n i n g t h e t r a n s c r i p t of a c o u r t conference; and (4) the C l e r k i m p r o p e r l y d e c l i n e d t o award D e f e n d a n t s t h e a t t o r n e y s ' fees and e x p e n s e s t h e y i n c u r r e d i n a t t e n d i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f Defendant Michael S . J e f f r i e s , t h e CEO o f Defendant Abercrombie and F i t c n . DISCUSSION I . Should P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion b e Denied a s U n t i m e l v ? Defendants f i r s t argue t h a t P l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r r e v i e the Clerk's taxation of costs should be denied because it is untimely. Rule 54 (d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provicles that the clerk may tax costs on 14 days' notice, and that "[oln motion served within the next 7 days, the court may review ' h :e clerk's action." Under Local Civil Rule 54.1 of this Court, "[a] party objecting to any cost item shall serve objections in writing prior to or at the time for taxation. . . . written objections, any item listed may In the absence of be taxed within the discretion of the clerk." Local Civil Rule 54.l(b) of the Southern District of New York. Even though Plaintiff's counsel was on notice that a hearing on the taxation of costs would take place on June 24 (see Affirmation of Howard M. Wexler, dated Aug. 5, 2010 ("Wexler Aff.") , Ex. C), in contravention of this Court's Local Rules, she failec to object to the Bill of Costs submitted by Defendants, either in writing or by attending the hearing. The Bill of Costs was taxed and filed by the Clerk on June 24, 2010, and was docketed as a judgment on the Judgment Docket on June 25, 2010.2 Nevertheless, Defendants' counsel secured a copy of the Bill of Costs filed by the Clerk on June 24, and sent it to Plaintifffs counsel by express overnight delivery. It was delivered to Plaintiff's counsel's The Judgment was not entered on the ECF Docket until J 29, 2010. office, and signed for, on the morning of June 25, 2010. Aff. Exs. B & (a Wex:.er C.) Defendants now argue that whether the 7-day period for challenging the taxation of costs began to run from the date the Clerk taxed costs (June 24), or the date the Bill of Costs was entered as a judgment (June 25), which was also the date on which Plaintiff's counsel received notice of the taxation of costs, at -h :e latest, Plaintiff had to file her motion for review by July 2, 2010. Yet, Plaintiff did not file her initial motion to review the Clerc's taxation of costs until July 6, 2010. It was, therefore, untimely, but merely by one day, as July 3 and 4 fell on a Saturday and Sunday, respectively, and July 5 was a legal holiday. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) (1)(C). Relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), Plaintiff responds that because the Bill of Costs was sent to her by Defendants' counsel by overnight mail, three days should be added to the time in which she had to act. That argument, however, is misplaced, as that rule only has relevance when a party "must act within a specified time after service," Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), and the 7-day period set fortk in Rule 54(d) (1) is not triggered by service. In fact, there is some disagreement among courts in t.his Circuit and elsewhere as to what triggers the 7-day period for filing a motion for review of a clerkfs taxation of costs. The plain language of Rule 54 (d)(1) indicates that the determinative date is when the clerk taxes See costs. R. Fed. 5 4 ( d ) ( l ) ( " T h e c l e r k may t a x c o s t s o n 1 4 d a y s f n o t i c e . served within t h e next & L 7 3 1 9 ( C J B ) , 2 0 0 9 W 3 0 7 7 2 0 , a t *4 (E.D. L a . F e b . C a s . C o . , No. the of bill costs); Keesh (NAM) ( G J D ) , 2 0 0 8 W 2 2 4 2 6 2 2 , a t * 1 n . 2 L v. Smith, (and apparen No. 1' f 6- ( s t a t ng 6, 2009) t h a t count began on t h e day a f t e r t h e c l e r k t a x e d entered) On mot:.on t h e c o u r t may r e v i e w t h e c l e r 7 days, see a l s o P r o v e n z a v . S t . Farm, F i r e actions."); P. Civ. 9:04-CV-0 May 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( " (N.D.N.Y. r u l e p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e motion must b e s e r v e d (mailed) w i t h i n the clerkfs action.") days of F.R.D. 150, defendants' 2006, 152 (S.D.N.Y. imposition decision. 2006) Hickev v . N e w York, Citv of ("Plaintiffs did not r e q u e s t t o t a x b e f o r e o r a t t h e t a x a t i o n o n May 1 0 , and p l a i n t i f f s Clerk's ;3 d i d n o t move t h i s C o u r t of costs within five f o r review of days of the Cle kfs Accordingly, p l a i n t i f f s have waived any o b j e c t i o n t o t h e b i l l of costs."); D e J e s u s v . S t a r r T e c h . R i s k s Aqencv, I n c . , Civ. 2005 W 957389, L 1298 I the (RJH), a t * 1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, ( " R u l e 54 ( d ) (1) s a y s t h a t a n y m o t i o n s h a l l b e f i l e d w i t h i n f i v e c.ays of taxation Inc., No. 16, 1997) . . . 95 C i v . ; L&B 5 7 t h S t r e e t , 3450 ( H B ) , Inc. 1997 W 403430, L v. E.M. Blanch~.rd, a t * 1 (S.D.N.Y. ;'uly ( f i n d i n g t h a t p a r t i e s f motions f o r review must b e f i l e d w i t h i n f i v e days o f t h e c l e r k f s t a x a t i o n o f c o s t s ) ; P a o l i R.R. T h e p r e v i o u s v e r s i o n o f R u l e 5 4 ( d ) (1) p r o v i d e d f o r 5 d t o move f o r r e v i e w o f t h e t a x a t i o n o f c o s t s . Yard PCB Litiq., 221 F.3d 449, 458-59 (3d Cir. 2000) (rejecting 1oc:al district court rule that relied on day of notice to trigger the period for review, and finding that the plain language of the rule requires the determinative date to be the date on which the clerk acts to tax costs (which also was the day on which the clerk entexed an order taxing costs)). Other courts view the date of entry on the docket or judgment taxing costs as the triggering date. See United States Dep't of Taxation, No. CV-97-6020 1782873, at *3 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2001) : Circuit has not decided whether the five-day period within which to move for review starts with the taxation of costs or entry of t at action [on] the Court's docket, the parties agree that the lat er date applies."); Ashker v. Savre, No. 2991667, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2010) 05-03759 (" (CW), 2010 WL [Alny motion for review of the Clerk's taxation of costs must be filed within seven day the entry of the Clerk's notice of taxation of costs."); of cf. Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 255 F.R.D. 127, 128 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (no ing that the plaintiff did not move within five days of either the date on which the clerk taxed costs or the date on which the judgment thereon was entered). Still other courts have found the triggering date to be the date on which the parties were served with, or received notice of, the taxation of costs. See Eldaqhar v. Citw of New York Dep't of Citvwide Adrnin. Servs., 02 Civ. 9151 (KMW), 2010 i WL 1780950, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2010) ("The Clerk of the Co rt issued its Bill of Costs . . . on March 12, 2010. Plaintiff Tas t' served with a copy of the Judgment Clerk's Bill of Costs on Ma ch 16, 2010. P Pursuant to Rule 54 (d)(I), Plaintiff' s motion for t is Court to review the Judgment Clerk's t: action should have b en ")I- submitted within seven days, or no later than March 23, 2010. In the instant case, if the Court were to apply the date on i: which the Clerk taxed costs (June 24), the date on which a Judgm nt I taxing costs was docketed (June 25), or the date on which Plaint'ff received notice of the taxation of costs (June 25), motion would still have been untimely by one day.4 P1aintifrf Nevertheless, "[tlhe decision to award costs pursuant to "fi le 54(d) (1) and Local Rule 54.1 rests within the sound discretion of the district court. . . ." Dattner v. Conaqra Foods, Inc., 458 7.3d 98, 100 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). T ~ S , it is widely recognized that the time limitations in Rule 54(d)(1) 1 are not jurisdictional, and that courts have discretion to enter ain untimely motions. See Paoli R.R. Yard, 221 F.3d at 459 (" 54 (d)(1)'s five-day limitation is not jurisdictional, and co The Court notes, however, that the docketing of the Judgment for the taxation of costs, on June 25, was not on the Court's public ECF docket. The Clerk maintains a separate, internal docket for the entry of judgments. Entry of the Cle::kfs Order on the ECF docket occurred on June 29. Under Local CiviIRule 6.2 of the Southern District of New York, the notation in the docket of a memorandum signed by the court of a decision, or of an oral decision, "shall constitute the entry of an order." may, in their discretion, consider untimely objections.") ; 2010 WL 1180950, at *2 ("The Court has discretiona consider a late-filed motion for good cause.") ; 2991667, at *1 ("Although a party may waive his r review of costs by not filing the motion within limits, a court has discretion to review an notwithstanding the waiver." ) ; (hearing motion day filed one Provenza, 2009 late, stating plaintifffs motion was not filed timely, the Cou to consider the merits of the motion."); cf. Leadership Academv. Inc., No. 05 Civ. 8233 (JGK), at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2008) (concluding that c its discretion and decide fully notwithstanding the moving party's briefed m noncomplian requirements of Local Civil Rule 54.1). Here, Plaintifffs counsel states that she w from June 14 through June 30, and that she s promptly after the July 4 holiday weekend Memorandum of Law in Support of Her Appeal an of Certain Costs, dated July 23, 2010 ("P1.I s M standing alone, this does not constitute " failure to meet a deadline, in light of the motion was only one day late, the Court will e and consider the merits of the motion. 11. P l a i n t i f f ' s Economic S i t u a t i o n P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t s h e i s a p e r s o n o f v e r y modest means, e m p l o y e d o n a p a r t - t i m e b a s i s a n d e a r n i n g h o u r l y w a g e s a t o n l y a :lew d o l l a r s a b o v e t h e minirium wage. I n l i g h t of t h e wide d i s p a r i t y i n t h e economic s i t u a t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s , r e l i e v e d of paying any c o s t s . (a. ' s Pl s h e r e q u e s t s t h a t s h e be Mem. a t 13-15; Reply t o Defendantsf Opposition t o P l a i n t i f f ' s 20, 2010 ( " P 1 . l ~ R e p l y " ) , a t 1-2; Plaintiff's Motion, d a t e d A , J ~ . A f f i d a v i t of Dulazia Burchette, dated J u l y 16, 2010.) Rule rules, 54(d) states t h a t or a court "[u]nless order provide a federal otherwise, statute, these costs - other than a t t o r n e y s f fees - s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . " F e d . R . C i v . P. 54 ( d ) ( 1 ) . B e c a u s e t h e r e i s a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t c o s t s w i l l be a w a r d e d t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , t h e l o s i n g p a r t y bears t h e burden of convincing a c o u r t t o e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o vacate t h e C l e r k ' s a w a r d o f c o s t s . See K a r m e l v . C i t v o f N e w York, No. 00 Civ. 9063 (KMK), 2008 W 216929, L a t *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 20C8). Among t h e e q u i t a b l e f a c t o r s a c o u r t may c o n s i d e r i n e x e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n a r e t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s i n d i g e n c e a n d f i n a n c i a l h a r d s h i p . See Eldashar, 2010 W 1780950, a t * l ; L Commer v . McEntee, No. (S.D.N.Y. preclude Aug. an Whitfield v. 13, award Scullv, 2008 W 216929, L a t *2; 00 C i v . 7 9 1 3 (RWS), 2 0 0 7 W 2 3 2 7 0 6 5 , a t * 3 L 2007). of Karmel, costs However, against 241 F.3d 264, "indigency an 273 se unsuccessful (2d C i r . does not litigart." 2001); acc:ord Hickev, 241 F.R.D. at 154 ("While indigency may exempt a the payment of costs in some circumstances, indigenc render a party immune from the general obligation (internal citations omitted). The Court does not view Plaintiff's financia sufficient basis on which to deny Defendants all costs. did not file this action in forma ~auperis,and was re counsel throughout all proceedings. Although Plaintif of modest means, she is not indigent. She lives wit and, thus, her living expenses are not substantial. The pretrial discovery in this action was exte doubt, expensive. In the end, the District Court Plaintiff had failed to adduce any competent evidence aspect of her federal claims of discrimination an Moreover, the Court has already determined that it wi equitable discretion to consider Plaintiff's untimel the taxation of costs. Under these circumstances, while the Court consideration Plaintiff's modest financial circums not deny Defendants recovery of all of their costs. Karmel, 2008 WL 216929, at *2-3 (taking into co financial disparity between the parties, but not against a plaintiff living on a pension and disab Pierre v. Citv of New York, No. 05 Civ. 5018 (JF 1700441, a t *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2008) ( d e c l i n i n g t o d e n y a l l c t o d e f e n d a n t s where p l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t a s s e r t a c t u a l i n d i g e n c y , r e t a i n e d two a t t o r n e y s t o r e p r e s e n t them i n t h e a c t i o n , a n d s i a r g u e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t h e c o s t s ; n o t i n g , however, even i f p l a i n t i f f s were i n d i g e n t , i t would n o t w a r r a n t d e n y i n g c o s t s ) ; M i l l e r v . C i t v o f New York, No. 99 C i v . 4431 ( J G ) , 200 188664, a t *2 ( E . D . N . Y . J a n . 23, 2007) ( f i n d i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f was unemployed, r e c e i v i n g d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s , support, d i d not meet h i s burden of and had c h i l d r e showing t h a t the equi w a r r a n t e d a w h o l e s a l e d e n i a l o f c o s t s ) ; Hickev, 241 F . R . D . a t 1 5 (concluding t h a t , where plaintiffs did not even assert ac i n d i g e n c y , h a d r e t a i n e d two a t t o r n e y s t o r e p r e s e n t them, and m e a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t o p a y c o s t s , t h e r e would k d e n i a l of c o s t s ) . 111. P l a i n t i f f ' s Obiections t o Taxation of S p e c i f i c Costs A l t h o u g h D e f e n d a n t s s u b m i t t e d a B i l l of C o s t s i n t h e am of $10,694.33, $2,734.97. $75.00; the Clerk taxed in the amount of The c o s t s awarded t o D e f e n d a n t s i n c l u d e s e r v i c e f e e the fee for a transcript amount of costs $512.82; deposition, in the of and t h e c o s t of amount of a c o u r t proceeding, a transcript $2,147.15. The of Clerk in Plainti disall c o u n s e l ' s f e e s f o r a t t e n d i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f Defendant Michae J e f f r i e s , i n t h e amount o f $ 6 , 8 4 0 . 0 0 , attending M r . Jeffries' deposition, and t h e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e i n t h e amount o f $1,119.3t Plaintiff first objects to the t r a n s c r i p t of a p r e t r i a l proceeding. award of costs for the t She c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e s e c o t s a r e n o t a u t h o r i z e d by t h e C o u r t ' s L o c a l R u l e s . 28 U.S.C. § 1920 d e l i n e a t e s t h e c o s t s t h a t may b e awarded t o a p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n f e d e r a l l i t i g a t i o n . See W h i t f i e l d , 241 F . 3 d T h a t p r o v i s i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e s t h e t a x a t i o n of a t 269-70. c o s t s f o r , among o t h e r t h i n g s , " [ f ]e e s f o r p r i n t e d o r e l e c t r o n i c a . l l y I recorded t r a n s c r i p t s n e c e s s a r i l y obtained f o r use i n t h e case. If U.S.C. § 1920(2). 28 i t was n e c e s s a r y t o Defendants contend t h a t 1 s e c u r e t h e t r a n s c r i p t of a p r e t r i a l discovery conference b e f o r e t i s Court, as conference, the Court relating issued to a the number scheduling d i s c o v e r a b i l i t y of medical records, i s s u e d by D e f e n d a n t s . Plaintiff L o c a l C i v i l R u l e 5 4 . 1 ( c ) (1), \\ of oral of rulings at depositions, and o t h e r d i s c o v e r y I he he c o r r e c t l y responds [ t l h e c o s t of a proceedings p r i o r t o o r subsequent t o t r i a l i s t a x a b l e only a u t h o r i z e d i n a d v a n c e o r o r d e r e d by t h e c o u r t . " Local C i v i l 1 hen 5 4 . 1 ( c ) (1) of t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f N e w York. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , Defendants d i d not seek o r o b t a i n adv It t t a p p r o v a l f o r t h e c o s t o f s e c u r i n g t h e t r a n s c r i p t , n o r was t h e e a Court o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h a t t h e t r a n s c r i p t be o b t a i n e d . Accordin l y , t h e C l e r k was i n e r r o r i n a w a r d i n g c o s t s f o r t h e p r e t r i a l c o n f e r n c e t r a n s c r i p t . See I n d i a . c o m , Inc. v. 2010 W 2758567, a t *5 (S.D.N.Y. L Dalal, N o . 02 Civ. olll(DtC) J u l y 1 3 , 2010) ("The C l e r k e r j e d , . however, i n a l l o w i n g $492.00 f o r t h e c o s t s o f t r a n s c r i p t s o f 'post-trial transcript proceedings.' costs for [Defendant] post-trial has not that were a u t h o r i z e ( proceedings a d v a n c e o r o r d e r e d by t h e C o u r t . " ) ; shown S o v e r e i u n P a r t n e r s L t d . Pf v . R e s t . Teams I n t f l , I n c . , No. 99 C i v . 0564 ( R J W ) , 2001 WL 30 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. pretrial Jan. conference 12, is 2001) not a (finding cost taxable cost where transcripl because it was cf. Karmel, a u t h o r i z e d i n a d v a n c e o r o r d e r e d by t h e c o u r t ) ; 216929, of 20C a t *4 ( a l l o w i n g c o s t o f t r a n s c r i p t o f p r e t r i a l c o n f e r magistrate judge Carbonell v. Acrish, ordered 154 F. the parties Supp. 2d 552, to 568-69 purchase (S.D.N.Y. 2 ( a w a r d i n g c o s t s f o r t r a n s c r i p t of p r e t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g where c ordered p a r t i e s t o purchase t h e t r a n s c r i p t ) . IV. D e f e n d a n t s f R e q u e s t f o r Review o f t h e C l e r k ' s D e n i a l o f Cc Defendants s e e k review of t h e C l e r k ' s d e c i s i o n t o deny c o s t s f o r c o u n s e l f s f e e s and expenses i n c u r r e d i n a t t e n d i n g t a k i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n of Defendant J e f f r i e s . i n t h e amount o f $ 6 , 8 4 0 . 0 0 , The f e e r e q u e s t a n d t h e a t t e n d a n t e x p e n s e s were i n amount o f $ 1 , 1 1 9 . 3 6 . The C l e r k p r o p e r l y d e n i e d t h e s e c o s t s . i n 28 U.S.C. § 1920 f o r t h e t a x a t i o n o f c o s t s f o r a t t e n d i n g taking depositions. Rule 54(d)(2) T h e r e i s no p r o v i of Moreover, a m o t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y s f f e e s u the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is d i r e c t e d t o t h e C l e r k , a s t h e C l e r k may o n l y t a x c o s t s u n d e r 54 (d)(I), and those costs exclude attorneysr fees. Similarly, LC Civil Rule 54.1 provides that " [c] ounselrs fees and expenses attending the taking of a deposition are not taxable except provided by statute, rule . .. or order of the court." Since t k was no court order authorizing costs for deposition expenses, Defendants pointed to no statute or rule that authorized the payn of such costs, their assertion that "the Clerk erred in not ta, the Defendants1 costs associated with the deposition of C.E Michael Jeffries," (Defs.' Reply at 8 ) , is simply wrong. In addition, under Rule 54 (d), a claim for attorneyrs fees n be made by motion, within fourteen days of entry of judgme Judgment was entered in this action on May 11, 2010. Neither request to tax costs (which was not a motion for attorney's fee nor the instant motion for review of the Clerkrs taxation of co: was filed within fourteen days of entry of judgment. To the extent that Defendants now rely on Local Civil Rule in support of their request, that reliance is also misplaced. : 1 rule provides that when a deposition is sought to be taken more t 100 miles from the courthouse, the court may by order provide that prior to the examination, the applicant pay the expense (including the reasonable counsel fee) of attendance of one attorney for each adversary at the place where the deposition is to be taken. The amounts so paid, unless otherwise directed by the court, shall be a taxable cost in the event that the applicant recovers costs of the action or proceeding. Local Civil Rule 30.1 of the Southern District of New York. Here, the applicant for the deposition was Plaintiff, and was not ordered to pay the expense of Defendants1 counsel fees attendance at the deposition of one of the Defendants, in Clevel Ohio. In fact, the reason that the deposition was taken in Ohio for the convenience of Defendant Jeffries, who works in Ohio. For all of the above reasons, Defendants1 motion for part review of the Clerk's taxation of costs is denied. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion for rev of the Clerk's taxation of costs is granted in part and denied part. And, Defendants1 motion for review of the Clerk's taxat of costs is denied. Plaintiff shall therefore pay costs in amount of $2,222.15, which includes service fees of $75.00 and cost of the transcript of Plaintiff's deposition, in the amount $2,147.15. The parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of t Opinion and Order to file written objections. See also Fed. R. C P. 6(a). Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of Court, with extra copies delivered to the chambers of the Honor Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge, and to the cha of the undersigned, Room 1660. Any requests for an extensi time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Be Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U. S. 155, 1 0 6 S. Herrmann, F.2d 298, Servs., Ct. 466, 475 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; I U E AFL-CIO 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 ( 2 d C i r . 300 (2d C i r . 1989) Sec'v . THEODORE H . S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2010 N e w York, N e w York 968 o f H e a l t h & Human So Ordered. Dated: Fund , v . 1993); Frank v. Johnson, 1 9 9 2 ) ; Small v. 892 F.2d 1 5 , 1 6 (2d C i r . Pension KATZ
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
