In the

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 13-2197
A¡¡eaI from lhe Uniled Slales Dislricl Courl for lhe
Norlhern Dislricl of IIIinois, Iaslern Division.
No. 86 C 7888 ÷ !"#$%&' )* +,$-%&, 2314".
ARGUID AIRIL 18, 2014 ÷ DICIDID AIRIL 29, 2014
ßefore ßAUIR, IASTIRßROOK, and HAMILTON, 5'673'#
IASTIRßROOK, 5'673'# 2314". This suil began 28 years ago
and has been lo lhe Su¡reme Courl lhree limes. 8$#'9($% :6+
4$(';$#'9( )96 <9="(> ?(7/ ./ @7A"'1%"6, 510 U.S. 249 (1994),
@7A"'1%"6 ./ 8$#'9($% :64$(';$#'9( )96 <9="(> ?(7., 537 U.S. 393
(2003), @7A"'1%"6 ./ 8$#'9($% :64$(';$#'9( )96 <9="(> ?(7., 547
U.S. 9 (2006). AII defendanls vho sluck il oul lo lhe end
(some sellIed) ¡revaiIed across lhe board. They a¡¡Iied for
Case: 13-2197 Document: 49 Filed: 04/29/2014 Pages: 7
2 No. 13-2197
cosls under 28 U.S.C. Ç1920 and vere avarded mosl of vhal
lhey soughl÷bul nol unliI Dislricl }udge Coar heId lhe re-
quesl under advisemenl for lhree years and lhen relired, af-
ler vhich lhe case vas lransferred lo Dislricl }udge NorgIe.
He avarded a lolaI $63,391.45, modesl for a suil lhal enlaiIed
discovery, a Iong lriaI, many molions in lhe dislricl courl,
and a¡¡eIIale ¡roceedings lhal s¡an a generalion. The cosls
amounl lo Iess lhan $2,300 ¡er year of Iiligalion.
IIainliffs dis¡ule some of lhe dislricl |udge's decisions
aboul ¡arlicuIar ilems, bul ve do nol ¡erceive eilher a cIear
error of facl or an abuse of discrelion and have no more lo
say aboul lhose mallers. IIainliffs aIso offer lhree reasons
vhy defendanls shouId gel nolhing: (1) lhey look loo Iong lo
requesl cosls, (2) lhey did nol eslabIish lhal lhe lranscri¡ls
and co¡ies vere ´necessariIy oblained for use in lhe case¨ as
Ç1920 requires, and (3) lhey did nol nudge }udge Coar lo
ruIe before he relired. We consider lhese in lurn.
1. IinaI |udgmenl vas enlered on May 14, 2007. Defend-
anls fiIed a limeIy molion under Ied. R. Civ. I. 59 lo amend
lhe |udgmenl, lhey aIso asked for more lime lo fiIe a biII of
cosls, leIIing lhe |udge lhal lhe Ienglh and com¡Iexily of lhe
case, and lhe need lo coordinale among lhe many defend-
anls, |uslified addilionaI lime. }udge Coar did nol acl on lhal
molion. Defendanls lhen fiIed a biII of cosls on }uIy 14÷one
day Iale, unIess lhe RuIe 59 molion ilseIf exlended lhe lime.
Inslead of deciding vhal effecl lhe RuIe 59 molion had,
}udge Coar enlered an order on }uIy 19 acce¡ling lhe beIaled
fiIing. N.D. III. LocaI RuIe 54.3 requires ¡arlies seeking cosls
lo foIIov u¡ by conferring vilh olher Iiliganls lo see vhal
dis¡ules can be resoIved vilhoul |udiciaI aclion. Defendanls
Case: 13-2197 Document: 49 Filed: 04/29/2014 Pages: 7
No. 13-2197 3
asked for exlensions, lhe Iasl of lhese ran lhrough Oclober 1,
and defendanls fiIed lhe LocaI RuIe 54.3 slalemenl lhal day.
}udge NorgIe concIuded lhal lhese evenls enlilIe defend-
anls lo a ruIing. A dislricl |udge may acce¡l unlimeIy fiI-
ings÷Ied. R. Civ. I. 54(d), vhich governs cosls, is nol
among lhe fev lhal creale non-exlendabIe lime Iimils÷and
a¡¡eIIale reviev is deferenliaI. See, e.g., &'9(""6 ?(."*#="(#
@"6.'7"* 59/ ./ B63(*C'7D ,**97'$#"* E/&/, 507 U.S. 380 (1993).
Nol lhal an exlension vas necessary. A limeIy molion under
RuIe 59 sus¡ends lhe |udgmenl's finaIily, see Ied. R. A¡¡. I.
4(a)(4), vhich means lhal lhe lime lo fiIe lhe biII of cosls did
nol begin lo run unliI lhe dislricl |udge resoIved lhe RuIe 59
molion. }udge Coar did nol do lhal unliI Augusl 22, 2007,
vhen he granled defendanls' molion and fixed lhe ¡robIems
in lhe iniliaI |udgmenl. The biII of cosls fiIed on }uIy 14 vas
earIy, nol Iale. And lhe LocaI RuIe 54.3 slalemenl vas limeIy.
2. IIainliffs conlend lhal defendanls did nol adequaleIy
¡rove vhal cosls lhey had incurred. AIlhough Ç1920 refers
lo ¡a¡ers ´necessariIy oblained for use in lhe case¨, il does
nol define ´necessariIy¨. Nor does RuIe 54(d), vhich creales
an informaI ¡rocess under vhich lhe cIerk of courl avards
cosls, sub|ecl lo |udiciaI reviev by a dissalisfied ¡arly. ßul 28
U.S.C. Ç1924 ¡rovides lhal lhe ¡arly seeking cosls musl veri-
fy lhe cIaim by ´an affidavil, made by himseIf or by his duIy
aulhorized allorney or agenl having knovIedge of lhe facls,
lhal such ilem is correcl and has been necessariIy incurred in
lhe case and lhal lhe services for vhich fees have been
charged vere acluaIIy and necessariIy ¡erformed.¨ Defend-
anls did exaclIy lhal, using lhe slalulory formuIa. IIainliffs
insisl lhal lhis is nol enough.
Case: 13-2197 Document: 49 Filed: 04/29/2014 Pages: 7
4 No. 13-2197
Why nol` No slalule or ruIe requires more. Iarls of
¡Iainliffs' brief ¡ro¡ose lhal lhe affidavil go lhrough lhe rec-
ord lo demonslrale vhy "$7A #6$(*76'-#, and ¡erha¡s even
each co¡y of any documenl, vas necessary. Thal vouId be
¡re¡oslerous. Co¡ies are made for ¡ennies a ¡age. Having a
Iavyer devole lhe lime necessary lo demonslrale lhe necessi-
ly of each lranscri¡l and every co¡y of a documenl vouId be
far more coslIy lhan lhe co¡ying ilseIf. No sensibIe IegaI sys-
lem requires ¡arlies lo vasle $60 of Iavyers' lime lo ex¡Iain
s¡ending $6 on making a co¡y of somelhing. Al oraI argu-
menl ¡Iainliffs denied lhal lhey are arguing for a documenl-
by-documenl demonslralion of necessily, bul lhey did nol
su¡¡Iy an inlermediale ¡osilion belveen lhe generaI Ç1924
affidavil and a documenl-s¡ecific ex¡Ianalion.
If by ´necessariIy¨ Ç1920 meanl somelhing Iike ´indis-
¡ensabIy,¨ lhen ¡erha¡s lhere vouId be no aIlernalive lo a
documenl-s¡ecific inquiry. ßul in Iav lhe vord ´necessary¨
oflen does nol Iive u¡ lo lhe im¡ression il conveys lo Iay
readers. See, e.g., F753%%97A ./ F$6G%$(1, 4 Wheal. 316 (1819)
(discussing lhe Conslilulion's ´necessary and ¡ro¡er¨
cIause). We have underslood Ç1920 as requiring no more
lhan lhal lhe lranscri¡ls or co¡ies be reasonabIy and ¡ru-
denlIy oblained÷vhich de¡ends on hov lhings seemed
vhen lhe ex¡endilures vere made, vilhoul lhe benefil of
hindsighl. See, e.g., F$H"*D" ./ 5A'7$49, 218 I.3d 815, 825 (7lh
Cir. 2000), I31*9( ./ 8$J'*79 B6$(1*> ?(7., 758 I.2d 1237,
1243÷44 (7lh Cir. 1985). When our Iiliganls ordered lran-
scri¡ls and made co¡ies, lhey vere defending againsl a
cIaim for lrebIe damages under RICO ¡Ius a demand for a
svee¡ing in|unclion. And lhey verified lhe reasonabIeness
of lhese oulIays by ¡aying lhemseIves, knoving lhal lhey
vouId have lo bear every ¡enny unIess lhey von in lhe end.
Case: 13-2197 Document: 49 Filed: 04/29/2014 Pages: 7
No. 13-2197 5
Hindsighl leIIs us lhal lhe defendanls couId have von vilh-
oul much of lhe evidence lhey ¡roduced, because lhe Su-
¡reme Courl evenluaIIy deemed ¡Iainliffs' IegaI lheories lo
be deficienl. ßul lhis circuil had heId olhervise, lhe Su¡reme
Courl reversed us lhree limes. The iniliaI reversaI sel aside
an order in defendanls' favor. Thal decision vas foIIoved by
discovery, a seven-veek |ury lriaI ending in damages ¡Ius a
nalionvide in|unclion, lvo a¡¡eIIale viclories by ¡Iainliffs,
and lvo more reversaIs by lhe Su¡reme Courl. A IegaI lheo-
ry slrong enough lo vin in lhe courl of a¡¡eaIs is more lhan
enough lo |uslify ¡rudenl defense ex¡endilures, no maller
vhal ha¡¡ens in lhe Su¡reme Courl.
3. ßy Oclober 12, 2007, lhe biII of cosls and LocaI RuIe
54.3 slalemenl had been submilled, and briefs had been ex-
changed. The maller vas ri¡e for decision. Nolhing ha¡-
¡ened unliI December 3, 2008, vhen lhe dislricl courl en-
lered a myslerious order dismissing ´as mool¨ defendanls'
requesl for exlra lime lo fiIe lhe LocaI RuIe 54.3 slalemenl.
The order vas a myslery because lhe slalemenl vas aIready
on fiIe, and more lhan a year earIier }udge Coar had granled
lhis very molion. On Se¡lember 24, 2009, lhe cIerk's office
noled on lhe dockel lhal lhe case vas cIosed. This is a se-
cond myslery, because lhe case had been lerminaled by finaI
|udgmenl in May 2007, and lhal |udgmenl had been amend-
ed (and lhus became finaI vilh finaIily) in Augusl 2007. A¡-
¡arenlIy lhe cIerk's office did nol send anyone a documenl
corres¡onding lo lhe dockel enlry, vhich |usl memoriaIized
somelhing lhal had occurred 25 monlhs earIier.
}udge Coar relired on December 31, 2010, vilhoul acling
on lhe Iong-¡ending biII of cosls. Iour monlhs Ialer, defend-
anls used a ¡rocedure eslabIished by N.D. III. LocaI RuIe
Case: 13-2197 Document: 49 Filed: 04/29/2014 Pages: 7
6 No. 13-2197
78.5 and caIIed lhe maller lo lhe courl's allenlion. IIainliffs
res¡onded by asserling lhal defendanls' faiIure lo fiIe such a
nolice before }udge Coar's reliremenl forfeiled lheir o¡¡or-
lunily lo receive a decision. In March 2012 }udge NorgIe re-
|ecled lhal conlenlion, and in May 2013 he avarded mosl of
lhe cosls defendanls had requesled÷afler lhey had vailed
5! years for |udiciaI aclion.
IIainliffs say lhal equily required defendanls lo give
}udge Coar a heads u¡ so lhal lhe |udiciaI officer vilh lhe
mosl knovIedge aboul lhe case couId resoIve lhe dis¡ule.
}udge Coar undoubledIy vas besl silualed lo lackIe lhis, and
he shouId have done so in faII 2007 ralher lhan Ielling lhe
maller sIide. ßul |udiciaI deIay does nol vi¡e oul a Iiliganl's
righls. IIainliffs sus¡ecl lhal defendanls lhoughl lhal }udge
Coar vouId ruIe againsl lhem and vere ha¡¡y lo vail unliI
lhe requesl Ianded in a differenl |udge's Ia¡. So vhal` No
slalule, ruIe, or decision of vhich ve are avare requires Iili-
ganls lo ¡esler |udges for ruIings on ¡ain of forfeilure. LocaI
RuIe 78.5 is ¡ermissive, il says lhal ¡arlies ´=$G on nolice .
caII a molion lo lhe allenlion of lhe courl for decision¨ (em-
¡hasis added). If ¡Iainliffs lhoughl lhal lhey had lheir besl
¡ros¡ecls vilh }udge Coar, #A"G couId have used LocaI RuIe
78.5 lo ask him for a ruIing. He look senior slalus in Augusl
2009, and his ¡Ian lo relire al lhe end of 2010 vas ¡ubIic
knovIedge. The lvo sides had equaI informalion and vere
equaIIy ¡assive. Neilher shouId gain from siIence, or |udiciaI
deIay, al lhe ex¡ense of lhe olher.
Nagging |udges lo acl on molions under advisemenl is
nol essenliaI lo ¡reserving one's righls. The courl's dockel-
lracking soflvare, and each |udge's duly lo re¡orl every six
monlhs on aII molions under advisemenl, are designed lo
Case: 13-2197 Document: 49 Filed: 04/29/2014 Pages: 7
No. 13-2197 7
kee¡ mallers moving vilhoul lhe need for Iiliganls lo com-
municale im¡alience. Their shorlcomings do nol obIige Iili-
ganls lo su¡¡Iemenl lhem vilh lickIers. The decisions on
vhich ¡Iainliffs reIy, such as ?( 6" &%3(D"##, 82 I.3d 738, 742
(7lh Cir. 1996), and K"%$;(G ./ EG(4, 853 I.2d 540 (7lh Cir.
1988), deaI vilh deIay in fiIing suils or molions, nol vilh Iil-
iganls' siIence afler mallers are under advisemenl. Al oraI
argumenl, ¡Iainliffs' Iavyer candidIy admilled lhal she did
nol knov of any decision, by any courl, crealing a badger-
lhe-|udge-or-forfeil-lhe-molion requiremenl, our search did
nol lurn one u¡. We viII nol be lhe firsl. The obIigalion lo
render limeIy ruIings resls on lhe |udiciary, nol lhe ¡arlies.
This Iiligalion has Iasled far loo Iong. Al Iasl il is over.
Case: 13-2197 Document: 49 Filed: 04/29/2014 Pages: 7

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful