Allred v. Home Depot USA, Inc.

Filing 163

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1) Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Order Granting Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (Dkt. 157 ) is DENIED.2) The Courts previous deadline for the payment of fees and costs, September 6, 2019, is vacat ed. 3) Fees and costs previously awarded to Defendants in the amount of $3,842.47 must be remitted by Plaintiffs attorney to counsel for Defendants on or before November 22, 2019. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
RANDI ALLRED,

Case No. 1:17-CV-00483-BLW

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., dba
THE HOME DEPOT, and JOSH
HAZLETT,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of the
Order Granting Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Dkt. 157. Because the motion
has been fully briefed and oral argument would not aid in disposition of the
motion, the Court will decide the motion on the briefing. For the following
reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion, but will modify the previously
established payment deadline.
DISCUSSION
On August 23, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants’ Motion
for Attorney Fees and Costs (Dkt. 132) associated with preparation for and

ORDER - 1

attendance of the December 20, 2018 deposition of Joshua Benjamin. The
deposition was unilaterally cancelled at the last minute by Plaintiff’s counsel.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(g), the Court directed Plaintiff’s
counsel to remit $3,842.47 in fees and costs to Defendants by September 6, 2019.
Plaintiff now asks the Court to stay the enforcement of the Order. Counsel
for Plaintiff, Shelly H. Cozakos, asserts that enforcement of the Order within the
time specified poses an extreme financial hardship on her law firm. Ms. Cozakos’s
firm took Plaintiff Randi Allred’s case on a contingency fee basis. (See Cozakos
Dec., Dkt. 157-1 at 2.) The law firm is small, employing one person on a full-time
basis and two people on a part-time basis. Id. Ms. Cozakos asserts that payment of
the fees and costs will make it difficult for the firm to meet its financial
obligations—including payroll obligations to its employees. Id. She requests a stay
of the payment obligation pending resolution of an appeal of the Court’s decision
granting summary judgment on behalf of Defendants. Id. at 2-3.
Defendants argue a stay is not supported by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
62, which concerns proceedings to stay the enforcement a judgment. Dkt. 158 at 2.
Defendants assert the Court’s award of fees and costs associated with a grant of a
motion for sanctions is not a “judgment” as described in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54. Id. Defendants note, however, that they are willing to work with Ms.
Cozakos in establishing a payment plan. Id. at 3.

ORDER - 2

In reply, Plaintiff asserts the Court’s Order was for the payment of fees and
costs associated with a cancelled deposition, and is not a sanctions penalty fee.
Dkt. 159 at 2-3. Indeed, the Court awarded the fees and costs pursuant to Rule
30(g), which allows a party “expecting a deposition to be taken” to “recover
reasonable expenses” “including attorney’s fees” when the noticing party fails to
attend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(g); see Dkt. 154 at 13-14.
Notably, Plaintiff askes the Court to stay the enforcement of the fee and
costs award until the conclusion of an appeal. This argument presumes the Court’s
resolution of the pending motion for reconsideration and a potential appeal. These
matters are both ancillary to the Court’s determination that a payment of fees and
costs for the cancelled deposition is warranted under Rule 30(g). Provided this, the
Court will not stay its enforcement of the Order.
However, given the potential financial hardship that would result to Ms.
Cozakos’s law firm from an order of immediate payment, the Court will extend the
payment deadline. The Court encourages the parties to meet and confer on the
prospect of a reasonable installment payment schedule. Any installment schedule
must ensure full and final payment of the $3,842.47 is made by the deadline set
forth below.

ORDER - 3

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Order Granting Motion for
Attorney Fees and Costs (Dkt. 157) is DENIED.
2) The Court’s previous deadline for the payment of fees and costs,
September 6, 2019, is vacated.
3) Fees and costs previously awarded to Defendants in the amount of
$3,842.47 must be remitted by Plaintiff’s attorney to counsel for
Defendants on or before November 22, 2019.
DATED: September 23, 2019

75.�w�

B. Lynn Winmill

United States District Judge

ORDER - 4