Harris v. Butler et al

Filing 130

ORDER: Plaintiff's objection to expenses (Doc. 97 ) is OVERRULED; Defendant's Motion to Stay Reimbursement (Doc. 123 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/14/2016. (rlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LARRY HARRIS #N-57672,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 14-cv-0498-SMY-PMF

KIM BUTLER, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objection to the Ruling by
Magistrate Judge Frazier (Doc. 97) and Defendants’ Motion to Stay Reimbursement of Expenses
(Doc. 123). Plaintiff contends Judge Frazier’s Order at Doc. 95 is clearly erroneous and he seeks
additional expenses to be reimbursed to him. Defendants responded (Doc. 108) that the expenses
being sought by Plaintiff are “far in excess of what could reasonably be expected to be incurred
in making [the] motion to compel (Doc. 81).” Doc. 108, p. 1-2. Defendants do not object to
Magistrate Judge Frazier’s award of $51.54, but seek to stay reimbursement to Plaintiff for a
period of 60 days (Doc. 123).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs the Court to consider objections to
magistrate orders and to “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is
contrary to law.” An award of reasonable expenses is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5),
which states:
If the motion [to compel discovery] is granted--or if the disclosure or
requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed--the court must,
after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent
whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that
conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in
making the motion, including attorney's fees.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (emphasis added).

Here, Plaintiff claims Judge Frazier “[took] it upon himself to object to the bill of cost.”
Doc. 97, p. 5. However, the Order (Doc. 95) explicitly states the reason for reducing the
expenses sought in Plaintiff’s affidavit (Doc. 81) —the affidavit was “not restricted to the
expenses incurred in making his motion but describes all of his litigation expenses.” Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 97) is OVERRULED.
Further, for lack of good cause shown, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Reimbursement of
Expenses (Doc. 123) is DENIED. Defendants shall reimburse $51.54 to Plaintiff pursuant to the
Order at Doc. 95 without delay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 14, 2016

s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE

2