Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC et al

Filing 112

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.

A.

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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.

8

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

9

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

Under 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

10

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

11

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.

12

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,

13

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

14

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.

15

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

16

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.

17

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

cc:

T h e Honorable Adalberto Jordan A ll counsel of record

18