Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 84 Bill of Costs, 88 Bill of Costs, 89 Bill of Costs, [12 in Case No. 07-20200] Bill of Costs. Objections to R&R due by 11/27/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chris M. McAliley on 11/6/09. (jjz)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S O U T H E R N DISTRICT OF FLORIDA C A S E NO. 07-20199-CIV-JORDAN D E L A W A R E VALLEY FLORAL G R O U P , INC., a New Jersey corporation f /k /a DELAWARE VALLEY W H O L E S A L E FLORIST, INC., et al., P l a i n t if f s , v. S H A W ROSE NETS, L.L.C., a Florida lim ite d liability company, and KENNETH P . SHAW, an individual, D e f e n d a n ts . _________________________________/ R E P O R T AND RECOMMENDATION O N PLAINTIFFS' BILLS OF COSTS P e n d i n g before this Court are the Bills of Costs filed by Plaintiffs Delaware Valley F loral Group, Inc. (Delaware) [DE 84], Continental Farms, LLC (Continental) [DE 88], C h o ic e Farm Corp. (Choice) [DE 89], and Superior Florals, Inc. (Superior) [improperly filed a s DE 12, in Case No. 07-20200-CIV-JORDAN]. Defendants Shaw Rose Nets, LLC and K en n eth P. Shaw filed responses in opposition. [DE 90, 93, 94, 95]. The bills of costs were g ra n te d by the Honorable Adalberto Jordan and referred to me for a report and rec o m m en d atio n as to the proper amount of costs. [DE 99, 100, 101, 102].
I. BACKGROUND P la in tif f s filed their Complaint on January 25, 2007, and subsequently filed an A m e n d e d Complaint on May 21, 2007, alleging that Defendants were infringing upon U.S. P a te n t 5,765,305, which describes a method by which porous plastic netting is placed on ro s e s while they are growing to increase the size of the rose buds. [DE 1, 10]. Plaintiffs filed a joint Motion for Summary Judgment on June 11, 2008 [DE 37, 38], to which Defendants f ile d their Response in Opposition [DE 58, 59]. Judge Jordan granted Plaintiffs' Motion for S u m m a ry Judgment [DE 80], and on December 10, 2008, entered Final Judgment in favor o f Plaintiffs. [DE 81]. Following the entry of Final Judgment, Plaintiffs Delaware, Continental, Choice, and S u p e rio r each filed a separate Bill of Costs, which I now consider in turn. II. ANALYSIS F e d e ra l Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that a prevailing party is entitled to re c o v er its costs as a matter of course and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 sets forth the costs that may be ta x e d . See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987); Maris D is tr ib u tin g Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 302 F.3d 1207, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002) (the court a b u s e s its discretion if it awards costs pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 54 in excess of those p e rm itte d by Congress under 28 U.S.C. § 1920). As noted, final judgment was entered for P la in tif f s, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties, and Judge Jo rd a n has already entered an order that Plaintiffs be awarded their costs. Therefore, the only rem ainin g issue is the amount of costs that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover.
P LAINTIFF DELAWARE VALLEY FLORAL GROUP, INC. F e e s of the Clerk P la in tif f Delaware seeks to recover its filing fees in the amount of $350.00. Section
1 9 2 0 (1 ) authorizes recovery of fees of the Clerk and Defendants make no objection to this c laim . As such, the Court determines that Plaintiff Delaware is entitled to recover this a m o u n t in its entirety, for a total of $350.00. F e e s for Service of Summons and Subpoena P lain tiff Delaware asks to recover the cost of service of summons and subpoenas in th e amount of $390.00. Plaintiff's invoices show that they spent $120.00 per Defendant to se rv e two summonses - at two different addresses ($60 per address) - on Defendants Kenneth S h a w and Shaw Rose Nets, which included rush delivery charges. [DE 84-1, p. 16-17]. The c o st of serving subpoenas on First Choice Floral and National Floral Exchange was $75.00 p e r subpoena, which included a same day priority charge. [DE 84-1, p. 18]. Defendants o b je c t to payment of these costs because the summonses and subpoenas were served on a " ru sh " or "same day priority" basis, which they claim was unnecessary. Defendants cite to P o w e ll v. Carey Int'l, Inc., 548 F.Supp.2d 1351, 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2008) as authority that " p rio rity fees" for service can not be recovered under section 1920(1). Section 1920(1) provides that "[f]ees of the clerk and marshal" may be taxed as costs. T h is includes service of process costs for the Complaint, as well as costs for deposition and t r i a l subpoenas. Although § 1920(1) specifically references the "marshal," the Eleventh
C irc u it has held that service by a private process server is recoverable, provided that the rates d o not exceed the cost that would be charged by the U.S. Marshals Service for service. U n ite d States Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 623-24 (1 1 th Cir. 2000). At the time of the service here, the U.S. Marshal's rate was $45.00 per hour f o r each item served, plus travel costs and other out-of-pocket expenses. See 28 C.F.R. § 0 .1 1 4 (a)(3) (2007). Defendants are correct that priority rush fees generally are not compensable, but P la in tif f Delaware may recover the $45.00 the U.S. Marshals Service would have charged f o r service. Plaintiff Delaware has the burden of justifying its costs, and has failed to d e m o n stra te why it was necessary to serve the same process simultaneously at multiple a d d re s s e s , and why it was necessary to do so on a rush basis. As such, I recommend that P lain tiff Delaware recover $45.00 for a one-time service of the summons on each Defendant, a n d service of the two subpoenas, for a total of $180.00. F e e s of the Court Reporter for Transcripts P la in tif f Delaware seeks to recover $1,697.36 in court reporter fees for two d e p o sitio n s . Taxation of transcript costs is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2), so long as the tra n sc rip ts were "necessarily obtained for use in the case." United States Equal Employment O p p o r tu n ity Comm., 213 F.3d at 620-21. Depositions of parties, depositions relied on at s u m m a r y judgment, and depositions of witnesses identified on the opposing parties' witness lists are generally taxable. Id. at 621-22. However, "[w]here the deposition costs were
m e re ly incurred for convenience, to aid in thorough preparation, or for purposes of in v e stig a tio n only, the costs are not recoverable." Id. at 620. P lain tiff Delaware seeks to recover costs for the transcript of Defendant Kenneth S h a w 's deposition in the amount of $1,257.96 [DE 84-1, p. 20], and a certified transcript of the deposition of Antonio (Sefair) Ferrer in the amount of $439.40 [DE 84-1, p. 21]. D e f en d a n ts do not object on the ground that these depositions were not necessarily obtained, b u t they do challenge some of the fees - for scanning, copying, CD litigation packages, and s h ip p in g and handling - as unrecoverable. [DE 90, p. 3-4]. The Defendants are right that Plaintiff Delaware should not recover expenses related to exhibits and CDs (see Rivers v. Orthopedic Sys., Inc., No. 04-61375-CIV, 2006 WL 5 8 3 8 3 5 8 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2006)), and delivery charges. See United States v. Davis, 87 F .S u p p .2 d 82, 90 (D.R.I. 2000); Duckworth v. Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393, 1399 (11th Cir. 1 9 9 6 ) (postage costs "are clearly not recoverable."). Thus, $56.00 must be deducted from th e invoice for Mr. Shaw's deposition (leaving a balance of $1,201.96) and $128.90 must be d e d u c te d from the invoice for Mr. Ferrer's deposition (leaving a balance of $310.50), leaving a recoverable sum of $1,512.46. Fees and Disbursements for Printing P la in tif f Delaware seeks to recover $484.80 in fees and disbursements for printing, a n d in support offers only a list of dates and dollar amounts of the copying costs. Defendants o b je c t that Plaintiff Delaware has not met its burden of justifying these expenses, because
it has not provided any information about the nature and purpose of the copies. [DE 90, p. 4 -5 ]. Delaware also did not disclose the rate it claims for its copies. Copying costs are taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), if the photocopies were n e c e s s a rily obtained for use in the case. See For Play Limited, 2006 WL 3662339, at *10. In making this determination, courts should consider "whether the prevailing party could h a v e reasonably believed that it was necessary to copy the papers at issue." United States E q u a l Employment Opportunity Comm., 213 F.3d at 623. It is not necessary that the p h o to c o p ie s be used at trial or in any papers filed with the court to be taxable. Id. However, th e prevailing party cannot recover for copies made merely for counsel's convenience and th e party seeking costs bears the burden of showing that the costs are recoverable. See For P la y Limited, 2006 WL 3662339, at *10. W h e n the moving party does not meet this burden, or provides insufficient in f o rm a tio n regarding copy costs, it is within the court's discretion to decline to award any c o s ts . Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Serv., Inc., 203 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1340-41 (M.D. Fla. 2 0 0 2 ). In Scelta, although recognizing that some of the copying costs sought by the moving p a rtie s must be recoverable, the court held that where the moving parties "have not described the photocopying costs sufficiently to permit a determination of which photocopies were n e c es s a rily obtained for use in this case, reimbursement for photocopying costs is rejected in its entirety." Id.; see also For Play Limited, 2006 WL 3662339, at *10 (where plaintiff su b m itte d no evidence from which the court could determine which copy costs were
rec o v era b le , the court denied recovery of all copying costs). In the case at hand, Plaintiff Delaware elected to file a Bill of Costs pursuant to FED. R . CIV. P. 54(d) rather than a motion for costs with a supporting memorandum. Although a B ill of Costs does not require a supporting memorandum, the moving party nevertheless m a in ta in s its burden of proof, and Plaintiffs were put on notice that the necessity of the c o p ies was in dispute when Defendants filed their response. Plaintiff, however, choose to n o t file a reply. Plaintiff Delaware has not provided the Court with any indication as to the nature, p u rp o s e , and billing rate of the copies, and thus has failed to meet its burden of proof. I re c o m m e n d that Plaintiff Delaware's claim for copying costs be denied in its entirety. F e e s for Exemplification and Copies S e c tio n 1920(4) authorizes the recovery of the "[f]ees for exemplification and the c o sts of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in th e case." 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Plaintiff Delaware seeks to recover $5,266.87 in costs w h ic h it claims falls under this provision. Two of the costs (one for $683.38 and the other for $1,380.49) are for the production o f exhibits mounted on foam. [DE 84-1, p. 23,25]. Defendants have not generally objected to these claims, and while the court has little information about the exhibits, it would appear th a t these costs are recoverable. Arcadian Fertilizer, L.P. v. MPW Industrial Services, Inc., 2 4 9 F.3d 1293, 1296 (11th Cir. 2001) ("We read `copies of paper' to mean reproduction
in v o lv in g paper in its various forms, and conclude that because oversize documents and color p h o tog rap h s are capable of this characterization, taxation of these costs was not error."). D e f en d a n ts do object that one of these costs - that for $683.38 - is also partially claimed by P la in tif f Continental in its Bill of Costs; Defendants understandably want to be certain that it is not charged twice for this cost. Plaintiff Continental does ask to recover $292.88 of this ch arg e, which it reports was its pro rata share of this shared exhibit. [DE 88-1 p. 4]. C o n tin e n ta l acknowledges that the cost was actually incurred by Plaintiff Delaware's counsel o n behalf of all Plaintiffs [id.], and submits no proof that it actually paid Delaware's counsel a partial contribution. On this record, it is reasonable to award the entire cost ($683.38) to D e la w a re , and leave it to the Delaware to reimburse Continental for any contribution it made to this expense. Defendants object to three of the costs claimed (for $103.00, $100.00 and $3,000.00) b e c au s e they appear to be for legal research or similar search services. Once again, Plaintiff D e la w a re has not offered any information in reply to this objection. Defendants are correct th a t costs expended in computerized legal research are not recoverable under the statute. See D u c k w o r th v. Whisenaut, 97 F.3d 1393, 1399 (11th Cir. 1996); Scelta, 203 F.Supp.2d 1328 a t 1339. Thus, these costs should not be allowed. Based on the foregoing, I recommend that Plaintiff Delaware partially recover the fees it claims for exemplification and copies, in the amount of $2,063.87.
D o c k e t Fees P lain tiff Delaware claims $20.00 in attorney docket fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1923(a). B e c au s e this case is concluded upon a final hearing, the Court finds that Delaware is entitled to this amount pursuant to statute, for a total of $20.00. Compensation of Interpreters R e lyin g upon § 1920(6), which allows for the recovery of the "compensation of in t e rp r e te r s," Plaintiff Delaware asks to recover $275.00 spent on "Spanish to English tra n sla tin g services" and provides a supporting invoice. [DE 84-1, p. 7, 26]. Defendants do n o t object to the request. It remains an open question in the Eleventh Circuit whether document translation se rv ice s - as opposed to the interpretation of live speech - is compensable, and other Circuits a re split on this issue. The Seventh Circuit has ruled that translation services are not c o m p e n s a b le under § 1920(6). Extra Equipmentos E Exportacao, Ltda. v. Case Corp., 541 F .3 d 719, 727-28 (7th Cir. 2008) (disallowing the award of translation fees based on the plain lan g u a g e of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6)). In contrast, the Sixth Circuit has interpreted the statute m o re liberally to include the award of translation fees. BDT Products v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 4 0 5 F.3d 415, 419 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that the district court has broad discretion to in te rp re t § 1920 and does not abuse its discretion in awarding translation fees under the s t a tu t e ) . W h ile some courts in this District have followed the Seventh Circuit and disallowed
tra n s la tio n costs, others have allowed such costs. Compare Tesler v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., N o . 08-60323-CIV, 2009 WL 1851091, *2 (S.D. Fla. June 29, 2009), with Suarez v. Tremont T o w in g Inc., No. 07-21430-CIV, 2008 WL 2955123, *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2008). re su lts appear to depend heavily upon the circumstances of each case. The
c irc u m sta n c e s here, where the Defendants chose to not object to this cost, the amount is m o d e st, and the need in this case for translation of documents from Spanish to English is not s u rp ris in g , as a general proposition, recovery seems appropriate. For these reasons, I re c o m m e n d that Plaintiff Delaware recover this cost in its entirety, for a total of $275.00. In sum, I recommend that Plaintiff Delaware recover costs from the Defendants in the a m o u n t of $4,401.33. B. P LAINTIFF CONTINENTAL FARMS, L.L.C. F e e s of the Clerk P la in tif f Continental seeks to recover its filing fees in the amount of $1,050.00. S e c tio n 1920(1) allows prevailing parties to recover "fees of the Clerk" and Defendants make n o objection to this claim. As such, Plaintiff Continental is entitled to recover this amount in its entirety, for a total of $1,050.00. F e e s for Service of Summons and Subpoena P la in tif f Continental asks to recover service and subpoena fees in the amount of $ 5 8 9 .2 8 . Defendants object on the same grounds it raised in response to Plaintiff Delaware's re q u e st to recover similar costs, and my analysis of Delaware's service and subpoena fees
a p p lie s equally here. P la in tif f Continental submitted invoices for serving three summonses each on D e f en d a n t Shaw Rose Nets, at $105.00 apiece, for service at two addresses and upon the re g is te re d agent, and which included a rush delivery charge. Invoices were also provided for s e r v in g three summonses on Defendant Kenneth Shaw at $70.00 apiece, again with rush d e liv e ry charges. Plaintiff Continental also claims $32.14 each, as its pro rata share for the c o st of service of a subpoena for documents upon First Choice Floral and National Floral E x c h a n g e , which expense was undertaken by Plaintiff Delaware on behalf of all Plaintiffs. C o n t i n e n t a l has not provided the Court, however, with any proof that it has paid these a m o u n ts to Plaintiff Delaware. [DE 88-1, p. 2, 21-26]. As I have already noted in my review of Plaintiff Delaware's claim, while priority and ru s h fees are generally not compensable, Plaintiff Continental may recover the $45 fee the U .S . Marshals Service would have charged to serve the summonses. Like Plaintiff Delaware, P la in tif f Continental has not shown that it was necessary to serve the same defendant s i m u lta n e o u s ly at multiple addresses on a rush basis. As for the two subpoenas for which P lain tiff Continental seeks to recover a pro rata share of the service fees ($32.14 each), there is no proof that Continental already paid this money to Plaintiff Delaware, and I have rec o m m en d ed that Plaintiff Delaware be compensated the entire amount, and that the Court l e a v e it to Continental and Delaware to "settle up" between themselves, if appropriate. A c c o rd in g ly, I recommend that Plaintiff Continental recover $45.00 for service of one
s u m m o n s on Shaw Rose Nets and on Kenneth Shaw, for a total of $90.00. F e e s of the Court Reporter for Transcripts P la in tif f Continental asks to recover $1,450.00 in court reporter fees for two tra n s c r i p t s (Kenneth Shaw, $953.10 and Antonio (Sefair) Ferrer, $496.90), and provides su p p o rtin g invoices. [DE 88-1, p. 5-6, 31-32]. Defendants do not challenge the necessity o f these depositions, but as with Plaintiff Delaware, they do object that some of the court re p o rte rs ' charges are not recoverable. [DE 94, p. 4]. As I have already addressed, Plaintiff Continental is not entitled to recover expenses f o r CD's, scanning and copying exhibits, and shipping. Rather, recovery here is limited to th e cost of the transcripts themselves, which is $742.40 for Mr. Shaw's deposition, and $ 3 6 8 .0 0 for Mr. Ferrer's deposition, for a total of $1,110.40. F e e s and Disbursements for Printing P lain tiff Continental seeks to recover $1,196.00 for photocopies, and once again o f f ers only a list of dates and dollar amounts, without including information about the copies m a d e or the rate charged. [DE 88-1, p. 6-7]. Defendants raise the same objections that they d id to Plaintiff Delaware's claim for similar costs. [DE 94, p. 4-5]. B e c au s e Plaintiff Continental chose to not file a reply and has wholly failed to give th e Court with any indication as to the nature, purpose, and billing rate of the copies, I c o n c lu d e that Continental has not met its burden of proof and recommend that it not recover th e s e costs.
F e e s for Exemplification and Copies P la in tif f Continental seeks to recover $292.88, which it says is its pro rata share of a d e m o n stra tiv e exhibit that counsel for Plaintiff Delaware purchased on behalf of all P la in t if f s . [DE 88-1, p. 7]. As I explained in my review of Delaware's Bill of Costs, D e f e n d a n ts rightly asked that they not have to reimburse any Plaintiffs twice for this cost, a n d I have recommended that Delaware be awarded this entire cost, and that the Court leave it to the Plaintiffs to "settle up" between themselves, if appropriate. C o m p e n s a tio n of Interpreters P lain tiff Continental asks to recover $600.00 it paid to translate certain documents f ro m Spanish to English, which were included in its summary judgment memorandum. [DE 8 8 -1, p. 7, 36-39]. Defendants respond that these documents were attached to Plaintiff's s u m m a ry judgment reply memorandum, and upon Defendant's motion, they were struck by th e Court. [DE 94, p. 6]. Defendants claim they were stricken because they were not relev an t or necessary, but that is not entirely accurate: they were stricken because they were p a rt of an untimely argument, raised for the first time in Plaintiffs' reply memorandum. [DE 7 8 ]. In any event, Plaintiff Continental has not met Defendant's objection, and has not s h o w n the court that these translated documents were in fact necessary to the case. As a lre a d y noted, it has the burden of justifying the costs it asks to recover, Porcelanas F lo r e n c ia , S.A. v. Caribbean Resort Suppliers, Inc., No. 06-22139-CIV, 2009 WL 1456338,
a t *6 (S.D. Fla. May 22, 2009), and on this record I recommend that it not be awarded these tra n s la tio n costs. In sum, I recommend that Plaintiff Continental recover costs in the total amount of $ 2 ,2 5 0 .4 0 . C. P LAINTIFF CHOICE FARM CORP. F e e s of the Clerk P la in tif f Choice asks to recover its filing fees in the amount of $350.00. Section 1 9 2 0 (1 ) allows for this, and Defendants make no objection. As such, Plaintiff Choice should re c o v er this amount in its entirety, for a total of $350.00. F e e s for Service of Summons and Subpoena P la in tif f Choice asks to recover service fees in the amount of $60.00, for service of s u m m o n s e s on Defendants Shaw Rose Nets and Kenneth Shaw, at $30.00 apiece. D e f en d a n ts do not object to this request and I recommend that Plaintiff Choice recover the e n tire amount of $60.00. F e e s and Disbursements for Printing P la in tif f Choice seeks to recover $291.95 in photocopy charges. Similar to the other P la in t if f s , Choice provides a redacted invoice, that lists dates and the total costs of copies, b u t unlike the others includes the rate charged for copies (25 cents per page). [DE 89-1, p. 5 -9]. Defendants raise the same objections that they made to Delaware's and Continental's c la im s for copy charges [DE 93, p. 2-3], and this Plaintiff also did not meet those objections
in a reply. I use the same analysis expressed earlier in this Report and Recommendation and re c o m m e n d that Plaintiff Choice not recover any of these costs. Fees for Exemplification and Copies P la in tif f Choice seeks to recover $16.05 in fees for exemplification and copies of p a p e rs necessarily obtained for use in the case. This expense takes the form of CD d u p lica tio n . [DE 89-1, p. 3, 13]. Though Defendants do not object to this request, the Court n o te s that this request is improper under 28 U.S.C.§ 1920(4) as it does not fall under the c a te g o rie s of "copies of paper" or "exemplification" as defined by the Eleventh Circuit. See A rc a d ia n Fertilizer, L.P., 249 F.3d at 1296-97. As such, the Court finds that this cost is not r e c o v e r a b le . Docket Fees P la in tif f Choice claims its attorney docket fees of $20.00 as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1923. Because this case was concluded upon a final hearing, the Court finds that Choice is entitled to this statutory amount, for a total of $20.00. In sum, I recommend that Plaintiff Choice recover costs in the amount of $430.00. D. P LAINTIFF SUPERIOR FLORALS, INC. F e e s of the Clerk P la in tif f Superior seeks to recover its filing fees in the amount of $350.00, as a u th o ri ze d by section 1920(1), and Defendants make no objection to this claim. As such, P la in tif f Superior should recover this amount in its entirety, for a total of $350.00.
F e e s for Service of Summons and Subpoena P la in tif f Superior asks to recover $180.00 in fees for service of summons, and has p ro v id e d an invoice that shows two $60 charges for "rush" service on Kenneth Shaw at two a d d re s s e s , and one $60 charge for "rush" service on Shaw Rose Nets. [DE 12-1, p. 7].
D e f e n d a n t raises the same objections here, to the repetitive service and added fees for rush s e rv ic e . Applying the same reasoning I have already expressed, I recommend that Plaintiff S u p e rio r recover the $45 charge that the U.S. Marshals Service would have charged to serve th e summonses, once, on each Defendant, for a total of $90.00. F e e s of the Court Reporter for Transcripts P la in tif f Superior seeks to recover $1,450.00 in court reporter fees for the depositions o f Antonio Ferrer ($496.90) and Kenneth Shaw ($953.10). [DE 12-1, p. 10-11]. Defendants rig h tf u lly object to the unauthorized charges included in those invoices, for scanning and c o p yin g , CDs and shipping, but do not otherwise object to this claim. Consistent with the re a so n in g I have already expressed, Plaintiff Superior should recover only the cost of the tran scripts, $368.00 for the Ferrer deposition, and $742.40 for the Shaw deposition, for a to ta l of $1,110.40. F e e s and Disbursements for Printing P la in tif f Superior seeks to recover $369.68 in fees and disbursements for printing and p h o to c o p ie s , but provides scant information to support this claim. Specifically it attaches two in v o ice s from a copy service, one for $21.77 and the other for $256.00 for "copies" at a rate
o f 11 cents per page, but no information is included about the nature and purpose of the c o p ie s. [DE 12-1, p. 8-9]. Without any supporting documentation whatsoever, Superior s im p l y claims an additional $91.91 of photocopy charges. [DE 12-1, p. 4]. Defendants raise th e same objections here, as they have raised to the other claims for copying charges. [DE 9 5 , p. 4-5]. Again, Plaintiff Superior has not responded to these objections, or otherwise met its burden to support this claim. Therefore, I recommend that this claim for costs be denied in its entirety. L e g a l Research A lth o u g h Plaintiff Superior's actual Bill of Costs does not include a claim for legal re se a rc h , an attached document, titled "Itemization of Costs" includes "Westlaw re im b u rs e m e n t" in the amount of $70.49. [DE 12-2, p. 4]. As explained elsewhere in the R e p o rt and Recommendation, section 1920 does not authorize recovery of legal research fees. M e d ia tio n Expenses P la in tif f Superior seeks reimbursement for mediation expenses in the amount of $ 1 ,1 1 2 .9 7 . Defendants correctly object to this request on the grounds that section 1920 does n o t allow for recovery of these expenses. [DE 95, p.6]. See Santidrian v. Landmark Custom R a n c h e s, Inc., No. 08-60791-CIV, 2009 WL 3241987, *2 (S.D. Fla. October 5, 2009). This re q u e s t should be denied in its entirety. In sum, I recommend that Plaintiff Superior recover costs in the amount of $1,550.40.
I I I . RECOMMENDATION B a se d on the foregoing, this Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs are entitled to r e c o v e r their total costs in the following amounts: D e la w a r e Valley Floral Group, Inc.: P la in t iff Continental Farms, L.L.C.: P la in t iff Choice Farm Corp.: P la in tiff Superior Florals, Inc.: $ 4,401.33 $ 2,250.40 $ 430.00 $ 1,550.40
I V . OBJECTIONS PERIOD P u rsu a n t to Magistrate Rule 4(a), the parties may file written objections to this R e p o rt and Recommendation with the Honorable Adalberto Jordan within 10 days of the d a te of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections shall bar the p a rtie s from attacking on appeal any factual findings contained herein. See RTC v. H a llm a r k Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F .2 d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988). R E S P E C T F U L L Y SUBMITTED in chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6th day of N o v e m b e r , 2009. ___________________________________ C H R I S MCALILEY U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
T h e Honorable Adalberto Jordan A ll counsel of record
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?