Dolin v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation, et al

Filing 707

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable William T. Hart on 9/16/2020:(rao, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Wendy Dolin, Individually and as
)
Independent Executor of the estate of )
Stewart Dolin (deceased)
)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
SmithKline Beecham Corporation
)
d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline,
)
)
Defendant
)

Case No.: 12 C 6403
Judge William T. Hart

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendant SmithKline
Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithkline, (“GSK”) to award costs in the amount
of $141, 888.19 (Dkt. 681). Plaintiff Wendy Dolan (“Dolin”) opposes the allowance
of any costs.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that a prevailing party will
be awarded costs unless “a court order provides otherwise.” Beamon v. Marshall
& Isley Trust Co, 411 F. 3d 854, 864 (7th Cir. 2005); M. T. Bonk Co. v. Milton
Bradley Co., 945 F. 2d 1404, 1409 (7th Cir. 1991). The Rule has been understood to
mean that a court has discretion to deny costs under certain circumstances. The
Seventh Circuit has stated that, when considering such an order, courts should
consider factors including “the closeness and difficulty of the issues” and the run-up
of “excessive costs”. Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F. 3d 631, 635, 637; White &

White, Inc. v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp., 786 F. 2d 728, 730 (6th Cir.1986); Oglesby
v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Chicago/Wisconsin, 640 F. Supp. 32 (N.D.
Ill. 1985).
This has been a long drawn-out case. GSK prevailed on appeal to set aside a
jury verdict for the plaintiff based on federal preemption. Preemption is legal
defense that did not go to the jury. It is a question of law. Pre-trial discovery
proceedings did not relate to this issue. Only the deposition of Dr. Ronald Kraus
apparently related to that issue. The discovery was related to facts of a state-law
the claim that failure to warn of suicide risk was a cause of the suicide of Stewart
Dolin.
From the outset, GSK mounted a scorched-earth fact defense which
included a mandamus proceeding challenging a summary judgment ruling. In Re
GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 557 F. App. 578 (7th Cir. 2014).
GSK deposed 26 witnesses. Twenty-one fact witnesses and five expert
witnesses. Plaintiff took less that ten depositions, including experts, consistent
with Fed. R.C.P. 30(a)(2)(A) allowing 10 depositions per side. GSK’s deposition
costs are $45,859. Plaintiff’s costs were $37,647, much of which was incurred
because plaintiff participated in GSK’s discovery.
GSK seeks $4,303 in costs for hearing transcripts. The majority of the
transcripts were either expedited or daily (even more expensive than expedited). By
comparison plaintiff expense for hearing transcripts was $860.
GSK seeks $25,452 in printing costs for production, image conversions,

technical services and assembly. These costs were an extravagance that GSK could
afford.
The examples of GSK’s trial activity and resulting excessive costs leads to the
conclusion that each side should bear it own costs incurred in this court. However,
the court must enter a judgment for costs in the amount of $366 as allowed in a
Court of Appeals mandate dated September 28, 2018 (Dkt. 679) .
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
The clerk the court shall enter a judgment for costs in the amount of $366 in
favor of defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION D/B/A GLAXO
SMITHKLINE, a Pennsylvania Corporation, and against plaintiff WENDY B.
DOLIN, Individually and as Independent Executor of the ESTATE OF STEWART
DOLIN, Deceased.
Dated: September 16, 2020

Enter: /s/ William T. Hart
United Sates District Judge