Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Sarah Jones v. TheDirty - Motion for Reduction of Costs

Sarah Jones v. TheDirty - Motion for Reduction of Costs

Ratings: (0)|Views: 754|Likes:
Published by David S. Gingras
Sarah Jones v. TheDirty - Motion for Reduction of Costs
Sarah Jones v. TheDirty - Motion for Reduction of Costs

More info:

Published by: David S. Gingras on Aug 25, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON
SARAH JONES, Plaintiff, v. DIRTY WORLD ENTERTAINMENT RECORDINGS, LLC dba THEDIRT.COM, HOOMAN KARAMIAN aka NIK RICHIE aka CORBIN GRIMES, DIRTY WORLD LLC dba DIRTY WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, LLC dba THEDIRTY.COM, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Case No. 2:09cv00219-WOB Judge William O. Bertelsman
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
REDUCTION OF TAXATION OF COSTS
Comes the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and hereby moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), which allows the Court to review the Clerk 
s taxation of costs by a motion served within seven days.
MEMORANDUM
The court has broad discretion in allowing or disallowing the particular items listed in §
1920 as costs.”
 BTD Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.
, 405 F.3d 415, 419 (6th Cir.2005). In  particular, this discretion encompasses the power to decline to tax as costs those items enumerated under 28 U.S.C. 1920.
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbon, Inc.
, 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987). In determining whether costs should be allowed the court must consider the equities and  public interests at stake
. County of Suffolk v. Secretary of Interior 
, 76 F.R.D. 469, 472 (E.D.N.Y.1977). The assessment of costs against the non-prevailing party must be tempered by
Case: 2:09-cv-00219-WOB-CJS Doc #: 218 Filed: 08/22/14 Page: 1 of 7 - Page ID#: 3290
 
2 considerations of fairness.
Wm. Bros Boiler & Mfg. Co. v. Gibson
 – 
Stewart Co.
, 202 F.Supp. 6, 7 (N.D.Ohio 1961).
A.
 
Transcripts of Trial Proceedings ($1,237.35; $988.55)
A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:
 
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2).
“Necessarily obtained for use in the case” statutory standard for taxing costs
for transcripts and photocopies does not allow prevailing party to recover costs for materials that merely added to convenience of counsel or district court, or for materials produced solely for discovery; standard requires that prevailing party's transcription and copy costs must be reasonably necessary to litigation of case.
 In re Williams Securities Litigation-WCG Subclass
, 558 F.3d 1144, 1147-48 (10th Cir. 2009). Under this section transcript of testimony for use on appeal is not includable in taxable costs, since such transcript is not a necessary incident of an appeal, and because allowance to litigants of cost of copies of transcripts of testimony would unduly increase cost of litigation when there should happen to be several parties on winning side.
Todd Atlantic Shipyards Corp. v. The Southport 
, 100 F.Supp. 763 (E.D.S.C.1951). While
Todd 
 was about the cost of ordering
copies
 of the transcript, these transcripts had no bearing upon the appeal in this case, as the appeal was directly limited to the question of immunity under the CDA, a decision that was made prior to and not expanded upon by either  party at trial. Specifically, the Court denied the Defendant
s motion for judgment as a matter of law on January 10, 2012 (Doc. 76) which was related to CDA immunity. The Defendant appealed the Court
s denial on February 7, 2012 (Doc. 79). The Defendant appealed the same issue at the conclusion of the second trial. (Doc. 209).
Case: 2:09-cv-00219-WOB-CJS Doc #: 218 Filed: 08/22/14 Page: 2 of 7 - Page ID#: 3291
 
3 The first attempt to appeal the case took place prior to either trial and therefore there is no argument that the Defendant ordered these trial transcripts for the purpose of the first appeal. However, there was no reasonable need to order the trial transcripts for the purposes of either trial, as at the time of both trials the Defendant had two depositions of the Plaintiff and his own deposition. (See Doc. 216, Exhibits D, E, K). These transcripts were ordered for the convenience of the Defendant, not because they were reasonably necessary to litigation of the case. Further, the Plaintiff has already split costs with the Defendant for the transcripts of the first trial. The transcripts for the first trial were ordered 1/25/13. (Doc. 216, p. 33). This invoice
indicates that the charges are to be split evenly with Plaintiff’s counsel and expedited overnight.
 Id.
 at 34. In fact, the Plaintiff paid $1,166.55 for her half of the transcripts. (See Exhibit 1, Invoice for Transcripts and Check). Therefore the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court reduce the Clerk 
s taxation by $2225.90, the costs for obtaining the unnecessary trial transcripts.
B.
 
Transcripts of Hearings ($263.90; $190)
The Defendant also ordered transcripts from January 21, 2013 through January 24, 2013 for pre-trial hearings. (Doc. 216, p. 37; Exhibit M). These were ordered on February 25, 2013. Id. Once again the invoice notes that the charges were split between the Plaintiff and Defendant. Id. These were for hearings prior to trial, and are not necessary to the case. While these transcripts cover pretrial hearings there is no need for these transcripts in either trial or in appeal. The matters of pretrial conferences are not matters of fact and would have no use during trial and the single issue on appeal is whether or not the Defendant was entitled to immunity under the CDA, issues that were decided prior to these pretrial conferences. Therefore the Plaintiff requests that the Court reduce the Clerk 
s taxation by $263.90.
Case: 2:09-cv-00219-WOB-CJS Doc #: 218 Filed: 08/22/14 Page: 3 of 7 - Page ID#: 3292

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->