Cambridge University Press, et al v. J. Albert, et al
Filing
79
Response to the Bill of costs filed by Attorney John H. Rains, IV for Appellants Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Inc. and Sage Publications, Inc..--[Edited 11/25/2014 by JKM] (ECF: John Rains)
Nos. 12-14676-FF & 12-15147-FF
(Consolidated Appeals)
_____________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________________
Cambridge University Press,
Oxford University Press, Inc.,
and Sage Publications, Inc.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Mark P. Becker, in his official capacity as
Georgia State University President, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-1425 (Evans, J.)
_____________________________________
RESPONSE TO APPELEES’ OBJECTIONS TO
APPELLANTS’ BILL OF COSTS
_____________________________________
Edward B. Krugman
John H. Rains IV
BONDURANT, MIXSON &
ELMORE, LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street NW
Suite 3900
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone: (404) 881-4100
Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
R. Bruce Rich
Randi W. Singer
Jonathan Bloom
Todd D. Larson
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
Attorneys for Appellants
1281950.1
Case Nos. 12-14676-FF & 12-15147-FF
Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Mark P. Becker, et al.
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The following trial judges, attorneys, persons, associations of persons,
firms, partnerships, and corporations are known to have an interest in the
outcome of this case or appeal:
• Ablin, Karyn Kay
• Aistars, Sandra
• Albert, J.L.
• Alford, C. Dean
• Askew, Anthony B., counsel for Appellees
• Association of American Publishers, Inc.
• Banks, W. Wright, Jr., counsel for Appellees
• Bates, Mary Katherine, counsel for Appellees
• Ballard Spahr, LLP, counsel for Appellees
• Becker, Mark P.
• Bernard, Kenneth R., Jr.
• Bishop, James A.
• Bloom, Jonathan, counsel for Appellants
1281950.1
C-1 of 6
Case Nos. 12-14676-FF & 12-15147-FF
Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Mark P. Becker, et al.
• The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
• Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, counsel for Appellants
• Cambridge University Press
• Carter, Hugh A., Jr.
• Chapman, Floyd Brantley
• Cleveland, William H.
• Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
• Cooper, Frederick E.
• Dove, Ronald Gene, Jr.
• Durden, Lori
• Ellis, Larry R.
• Eskow, Lisa R., counsel for Appellants
• Evans, Hon. Orinda D., United States District Judge
• Gentry, Robin L., counsel for Appellees
• Georgia Attorney General’s Office
• Georgia State University
• Griffin, Rutledge A., Jr.
1281950.1
C-2 of 6
Case Nos. 12-14676-FF & 12-15147-FF
Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Mark P. Becker, et al.
• Harbin, John Weldon, counsel for Appellees
• Hatcher, Robert F.
• Henry, Ronald
• Hooks, George
• Hopkins, C. Thomas, Jr.
• Hurt, Charlene
• Jennings, W. Mansfield, Jr.
• Jolly, James R.
• Joseph, Bruce Gary
• King & Spalding, LLP, counsel for Appellees
• Krugman, Edward B., counsel for Appellants
• Larson, Todd D., counsel for Appellants
• Leebern, Donald M., Jr.
• Lerer, R.O., retired counsel for Appellees
• Lerner, Jack I.
• Levie, Walter Hill, III, counsel for Appellees
• Lynn, Kristen A., counsel for Appellees
1281950.1
C-3 of 6
Case Nos. 12-14676-FF & 12-15147-FF
Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Mark P. Becker, et al.
• Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC, counsel for Appellees
• McIntosh, Scott
• McMillan, Eldridge
• Meloy, Ada
• Miller, Richard William, counsel for Appellees
• Moffit, Natasha Horne, counsel for Appellees
• NeSmith, William, Jr.
• Olens, Samuel S., counsel for Appellees
• Oxford University Press, Inc.
• Oxford University Press, LLC
• Oxford University Press USA
• Palm, Risa
• Patton, Carl. V.
• Pequignot, W. Andrew
• Poitevint, Doreen Stiles
• Potts, Willis J., Jr.
• Pruitt, Neil L., Jr.
1281950.1
C-4 of 6
Case Nos. 12-14676-FF & 12-15147-FF
Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Mark P. Becker, et al.
• Quicker, Katrina M., counsel for Appellees
• Rains, John H., IV, counsel for Appellants
• Rasenberger, Mary Eleanor
• Rich, R. Bruce, counsel for Appellants
• Rodwell, Wanda Yancey
• SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Seamans, Nancy
• Schaetzel, Stephen M., counsel for Appellees
• Schultz, Jason Michael
• Singer, Randi W, counsel for Appellants
• Smith, Scott
• State of Georgia
• Steinman, Linda
• Stelling, Kessel, Jr.
• Stoltz, Mitchell
• Tarbutton, Benjamin J., III
• Tenny, Daniel
1281950.1
C-5 of 6
Case Nos. 12-14676-FF & 12-15147-FF
Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Mark P. Becker, et al.
• Tonsager, Lindsey Lori
• Tucker, Richard L.
• The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford
• Vigil, Allan
• Volkert, Mary Josephine Leddy, counsel for Appellees
• Wade, Rogers
• Walker, Larry
• Wasoff, Lois F.
• Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, counsel for Appellants
• Whiting-Pack, Denise E., counsel for Appellees
• Wilheit, Philip A., Sr.
1281950.1
C-6 of 6
BACKGROUND
On October 17, 2014, this Court reversed the district court’s entire
judgment in this copyright infringement action and also awarded costs to the
Plaintiffs-Appellants, three academic publishers (“Plaintiffs”), as the
prevailing parties in this appeal. The Court’s judgment was accompanied by
a standard Eleventh Circuit memorandum to counsel that stated “Pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 39, costs taxed against appellees.” On October 31, 2014,
Plaintiffs timely submitted their bill of costs in the amount of $6,217.05. 1 In
accordance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and this Court’s
rules, the costs Plaintiffs seek consist entirely of photocopying costs for their
appellate briefs and the expanded record excerpts they filed, which were
voluminous because of the three-week length of the trial. On November 7,
2014, Plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing en banc, and Appellees filed a
petition for panel rehearing which did not ask the panel to reconsider its
award of costs to Plaintiffs. On November 14, 2014, Appellees objected to
Plaintiffs’ bill of costs. Notably, they object not to the calculation of the
1
The bulk of the costs – $5,943.00 – is attributable to the cost of
reproducing the expanded record excerpts that were required under Circuit
Rules the Court has since modified. To comply with the rules then in effect
(in January 2013), Plaintiffs were required to prepare thousands of pages of
copies.
1281950.1
1
costs to be charged but rather to the order that costs be awarded to Plaintiffs.
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(3)(A), Plaintiffs hereby respond to
Appellees’ objection.
ARGUMENT
The Court should deny Appellees’ objection and award Plaintiffs the
full costs they incurred to comply with the Court’s rules and to prosecute
this appeal. First, contrary to Appellees’ suggestion, Plaintiffs prevailed in
this appeal. All three members of the panel agreed that the judgment of the
district court should be reversed and that the district court’s award of
prevailing party attorneys’ fees and expenses to Appellees be vacated.
Plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc identifies significant legal errors in
the panel majority’s opinion leading to that conclusion, but it does not
challenge the reversal of the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, the fact
that Plaintiffs have sought en banc review does not justify denying them an
award of costs for the success they have achieved so far in this appeal.
Second, Appellees’ objection is in reality an untimely (and second)
petition for rehearing by the panel. By attacking the October 17, 2014
decision to award costs – but not the amount or calculation of costs –
Appellees complain about a decision they should have challenged, if at all,
1281950.1
2
in their petition for panel rehearing, which they filed without addressing the
issue of costs. This Court should not permit Appellees a second, and
untimely, bite at the panel-rehearing apple.
Finally, the Court should reject out-of-hand the argument that
awarding costs against Appellees is in any away unfair or inequitable
because their litigation expenses are being funded by “a state agency with
limited financial resources.” Appellees’ Obj. to Bill of Costs at 7. The
Court has long recognized that while the decision to award costs is within
the Court’s discretion, costs may be taxed against even an indigent who
proceeds with an appeal in good faith. See, e.g., Harris v. Forsyth, 742 F.2d
1277, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 1984). To set aside an award of properly incurred
costs in favor of Appellees, whose present objection was signed by ten
attorneys, including partners at three different law firms, would fly in the
face of that precedent.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court overrule Appellees’
untimely objections to their bill of costs and award Plaintiffs the full costs
they have incurred to successfully prosecute this appeal.
1281950.1
3
Dated: November 24, 2014
s/ John H. Rains IV
John H. Rains IV
rains@bmelaw.com
Georgia Bar No. 556052
1281950.1
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have this 24th day of November, 2014 caused a true
and correct copy of this RESPONSE TO APPELEES’ OBJECTIONS TO
APPELLANTS’ BILL OF COSTS to be served through the Court’s
electronic filing system on the following counsel of record:
John W. Harbin, Esq.
Natasha H. Moffitt, Esq.
Mary Katherine Bates, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Katrina M. Quicker, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1800
Atlanta, GA 30309-7512
Richard W. Miller, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Anthony B. Askew, Esq.
Stephen M. Schaetzel, Esq.
MEUNIER, CARLIN & CURFMAN, LLC
817 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 500
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Mary Jo Volkert, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
1281950.1
5
s/ John H. Rains IV
John H. Rains IV
1281950.1
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?