GS CLEANTECH CORPORATION v. CARDINAL ETHANOL, LLC
Filing
704
OPINION AND ORDER granting (1681) Motion for Bill of Costs; granting (1682) Motion for Bill of Costs; granting (1683) Motion for Bill of Costs; granting (1684) Motion for Bill of Costs; granting (1685) Motion for Bill of Costs and granting (187 9) Bill of Costs. ***SEE ORDER FOR AWARD CHARTS*** (This order also references documents 1741, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757 and 1758). Signed by Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr on 1/15/2020. Associated Cases: 1:10-ml-02181-RLM-DML, 1:1 0-cv-00180-RLM-DML, 1:10-cv-08000-RLM-DML, 1:10-cv-08001-RLM-DML, 1:10-cv-08002-RLM-DML, 1:10-cv-08003-RLM-DML, 1:10-cv-08004-RLM-DML, 1:10-cv-08005-RLM-DML, 1:10-cv-08006-RLM-DML, 1:10-cv-08007-RLM-DML, 1:10-cv-08008-RLM-DML, 1:10-cv-08009-RLM-DML, 1:10-cv-08010-RLM-DML, 1:13-cv-08012-RLM-DML, 1:13-cv-08013-RLM-DML, 1:13-cv-08014-RLM-DML, 1:13-cv-08015-RLM-DML, 1:13-cv-08016-RLM-DML, 1:13-cv-08017-RLM-DML, 1:13-cv-08018-RLM-DML, 1:14-cv-08019-RLM-DML, 1:14-cv-08020-RLM-DML(CBU)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
IN RE: METHOD OF PROCESSING
ETHANOL BYPRODUCTS AND
RELATED SUBSYSTEMS (‘858) PATENT
LITIGATION
RELATED CASES:
1:10-cv-00180-LJM-DML
1:10-cv-08000-LJM-DML
1:10-cv-08001-LJM-DML
1:10-cv-08002-LJM-DML
1:10-cv-08003-LJM-DML
1:10-cv-08004-LJM-DML
1:10-cv-08005-LJM-DML
1:10-cv-08006-LJM-DML
1:10-cv-08007-LJM-DML
1:10-cv-08008-LJM-DML
1:10-cv-08009-LJM-DML
1:10-cv-08010-LJM-DML
1:13-cv-08012-LJM-DML
1:13-cv-08013-LJM-DML
1:13-cv-08014-LJM-DML
1:13-cv-08015-LJM-DML
1:13-cv-08016-LJM-DML
1:13-cv-08017-LJM-DML
1:13-cv-08018-LJM-DML
1:14-cv-08019-LJM-DML
1:14-cv-08020-LJM-DML
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:10-ml-02181-RLM-DML
OPINION AND ORDER
In 2016, the court entered judgment against the plaintiffs, CleanTech Co.
and GreenShift Corp., and in favor of the defendants. Several defendants then
filed bills of costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Those
bills of costs, and plaintiffs’ objections them, are before the court.
1
Discussion
I.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), costs “should be allowed to
the prevailing party." Rule 54(d)(1) "provides a presumption that the losing party
will pay costs but grants the court discretion to direct otherwise." Rivera v. City
of Chi., 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2006). A court awarding costs considers
"whether the cost imposed on the losing party is recoverable" and "if so, whether
the amount assessed for that item was reasonable." Majeske v. City of Chi., 218
F.3d 816, 824 (7th Cir. 2000). Recoverable costs include: (1) clerk and marshal
fees, (2) transcript fees, (3) witness fees and expenses, (4) fees for copies of papers
necessarily obtained for use in the case, (5) docket fees, and (6) compensation
for court-appointed experts and interpreters. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1)-(6). The
plaintiffs object that some of the requested costs aren’t recoverable, and that
others aren’t reasonable.
II.
Depositions
CleanTech and GreenShift argue that the defendants shouldn’t recover
any costs for the deposition transcripts, or in the alternative, that the court
should remove the costs of some depositions and reduce the award for the
remaining depositions to the amount that reflects an appropriate per page cost.
They first contend that the defendants could have shared the cost of transcripts
with the other defendants, so the court shouldn’t award any costs for transcripts.
CleanTech and GreenShift have come forward with no authority that requires
2
defendants represented by separate attorneys to share the cost of a transcript.
The court finds that the choice to independently order transcripts rather than
coordinate with other defendants was reasonable and necessary. The plaintiffs
also argue that no defendant provided sufficient documentation relating to the
transcripts because the invoices don’t separate out incidental charges such as
late fees, conference room costs, and court reporter travel. Because the court
thinks that the incidental charges are necessary and reasonable, as explained
later, failure to separate those charges out from the cost of the transcript doesn’t
make the documentation insufficient.
A. Deposition transcript of Charlie O’Brien
CleanTech and GreenShift object to Aemetis, Inc., Aemetis Keyes,
Homeland, Pacific Ethanol, and Pacific Ethanol Stockton recovering costs for the
deposition transcript of Charlie O’Brien because the transcript was ordered by
all five of the parties that Brown Winnick jointly represented. A choice to order a
separate transcript for each party represented by the same attorney would be
unreasonable and unnecessary. The defendants responded that they had only
ordered a single copy of the transcript and the cost of that transcript was split
equally
between
the
five
clients.
The
defendants
didn’t
submit
any
documentation to demonstrate that they split the cost of a single transcript, but
the low cost reflects that the defendants did split the cost. The court will tax the
total cost to the plaintiffs.
3
B. Deposition Transcript of Andrew Dorisio
CleanTech and GreenShift object to Aemetis, Inc., Pacific Ethanol
Stockton, and Homeland recovering costs for the deposition transcript of Andrew
Dorisio because the transcript was ordered by three parties that Brown Winnick
jointly represented. For the same reasons that it awarded the full cost of the
transcript of Mr. O’Brien’s deposition, the court will tax the full costs the
transcript of Mr. Dorisio’s deposition.
C. Copies of Transcripts of Other Deponents
CleanTech and GreenShift argue that the defendants shouldn’t be able to
recover costs for copies of depositions of the executives of other defendants or
their own employees. The court doesn’t agree. It was reasonable and necessary
for the defendants to understand the prospective testimony of the executives of
other parties to the suit. The court of appeals has rejected the claim that it is
unnecessary for a party to obtain a transcript of its own employees’ deposition.
See Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., 135 F.3d 445, 455 (7th Cir. 1998). The court
will
tax
the
plaintiffs
for
both
of
these
categories
of
transcripts.
They also object that ICM, Inc. shouldn’t recover for the cost of deposition
transcripts of Stan Janson and Jim Leiting because ICM didn’t attach an invoice
for the transcripts. ICM provided documentation for the expense, so the court
will tax the plaintiffs for these transcripts.
4
D. Per Page Cost of Deposition Transcripts
CleanTech and GreenShift next argue that the defendants’ recovery should
be limited to $3.65/page for original certified transcripts, and $0.90/page for
certified copies. The Judicial Conference has set a maximum rate for contract
court reporter services. The defendants maintain that, in the Southern District
of Indiana, the district court may award costs for transcripts in excess of that
maximum rate. The court agrees that it has discretion to award costs at a rate
higher than the minimum, but finds that the per page cost requested by the
defendants isn’t reasonable. The court reduces the awards so that the cost per
page is $3.65/page for original certified transcripts, and $0.90/page for certified
copies.
ICM responded to the plaintiffs’ objection to the per page cost by asserting
that they calculated the cost wrong because ICM ordered both an original
transcript and a certified copy. While some courts have allowed the prevailing
party to recover costs for multiple copies of the same deposition transcript, see
e.g. Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int'l Sec. Exch., LLC, No. 07 CV 623, 2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4701, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2014); others have not, see e.g.
In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., No. 08 C 7082, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
121804, at *24 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 2, 2014). Since ICM hasn’t shown that additional
copies of the deposition transcripts were necessary, the court won’t tax them
against the plaintiffs.
ICM also argues that CleanTech and GreenShift improperly removed the
indices from the page count when calculating the per page rate. Courts in this
5
circuit are split as to whether indices are recoverable under § 1920. Some courts
have taken the position that indices “are an integral part of the deposition
transcript” and so are recoverable. See, e.g., White v. City of Chi., No. 11 C 7802,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36084, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2015). Other courts have
allowed recovery when the prevailing party used the indices. See, e.g., Pope v.
Espeseth, Inc., No. 15-cv-486-jdp, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197559, at *2 (W.D.
Wis. Dec. 1, 2017). Still others have regarded indices as unnecessary costs
expended for the convenience of counsel. See, e.g., Porter v. City of Chi., No. 8 C
7165, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105232, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2014). The court is
persuaded that, generally, indices are ordered for the convenience of counsel.
Beyond citing to favorable cases, ICM has provided no argument as to why
indices were reasonable and necessary in this case. The court won’t tax their
costs on the plaintiffs.
E. Costs Incidental to the Depositions
CleanTech and GreenShift contend that they shouldn’t be taxed for
deposition services, but reasonable costs incidental to a necessary deposition
may be taxed against the losing party. Finchum v. Ford Motor Co., 57 F.3d 526,
534 (7th Cir. 1995). The court finds that apart from GEA’s late fees (discussed
below), the incidental costs that the defendants incurred are reasonable and
recoverable.
6
F. Late fee
District courts in this circuit have declined to include late fees in an award
of costs. See Borom v. Town of Merrillville, 857 F. Supp. 2d 785, 790 (N.D. Ind.
2012); Youngman v. Kouri, No. 16-cv-1005, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134235, at
*4 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2018). GEA has offered no explanation for the late fees, and
the court finds that the late fees aren’t reasonable. The court won’t tax them
against the plaintiffs.
G. Video Depositions
CleanTech and GreenShift object to the taxation of costs for video
depositions. As a preliminary matter, ICM argues that the plaintiffs waived their
objection to the cost of video depositions by failing to object at the time of the
depositions. ICM cites Bryant v. Trexler Trucking, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:11-cv02254-RBH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68831, at *9 (D.S.C. May 15, 2013) and
Massey, Inc. v. Moe's Sw. Grill, LLC, No. 1:07-CV-00741-RWS, 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 135236, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 5, 2015) to support its assertion. Both cases
are based on Morrison v. Reichhold Chems., 97 F.3d 460, 465 (11th Cir. 1996),
in which the court determined that an award of costs for a video deposition was
appropriate when the other party didn’t object to the video deposition at the time,
but the analysis didn’t end there. The court continued, “[w]e must decide
whether the copies of the videos obtained by Reichhold were ‘necessarily
obtained for use in the case.’” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2)). Based on this
reasoning, CleanTech and GreenShift didn’t waive their objection that video
7
depositions weren’t reasonable and necessary by not objecting at the time of the
depositions.
ICM also argues that video depositions are always reasonable and
necessary in patent cases. Courts in this circuit appraise on a case by case basis
whether video depositions were reasonable and necessary in patent cases, and
several have not awarded costs for video depositions in patent cases. See e.g.,
Cascades Comput. Innovation, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11 C 4574, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18324, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 2016); Chi. Bd. Options Exch.,
Inc. v. Int'l Sec. Exch., LLC, No. 07 CV 623, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4701, at *1415 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2014); Endotach LLC v. Cook Med. LLC, No. 1:13-cv-01135LJM-DKL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30712, at *8 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 10, 2016). The
court must decide whether the video depositions in this case were reasonable
and necessary.
CleanTech and GreenShift argue that the defendants didn’t demonstrate
that the video depositions were reasonable or necessary. As the defendants note,
the court can award costs for both video depositions and transcripts if
reasonable and necessary. Little v. Mitsubishi Mortors N. Am., Inc, 514 F.3d 699,
702 (7th Circ. 2008). “A prevailing party may establish the reasonableness of
obtaining a videotaped deposition if there is an uncertainty of whether the
witness will appear for trial.” Artunduaga v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., No. 12 C
8733, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56350, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 13, 2017).
Some of the defendants argue that it was reasonable and necessary to
obtain copies of the video for video depositions that were noticed by the plaintiffs.
8
The court doesn’t agree. While it was necessary for the defendants to know what
was said at the deposition, a video copy wasn’t necessary. Two defendants,
Iroquois Bio-Energy and Al-Corn Clean Fuel, provided an argument that there
was sufficient uncertainty that David Cantrell would be available for trial
because of issues with his health. The court agrees that Mr. Cantrell’s health
issues made it reasonable and necessary for the defendants to obtain copies of
his video deposition, and will award the cost to Iroquois Bio-Energy and Al-Corn
Clean Fuel. Al-Corn Clean Fuel also generally asserts that David Winsness, Greg
Barlage, Kevin Kreisler, Jay Sommers, and Jerry Dyer might not have made
themselves available to testify because they weren’t parties or were adverse
expert witnesses, and that a video deposition was thus reasonable and
necessary. The court doesn’t agree that the mere fact that the witnesses weren’t
parties or were adverse expert witnesses made these video depositions
reasonable and necessary. Since Al-Corn provided no additional reasons to
anticipate the witnesses’ unavailability at trial, the court won’t tax plaintiffs for
the video depositions.
Lincolnway argues that it should recover costs for all video depositions
because some of the deponents were outside the court’s subpoena power. A party
is not entitled to costs for video depositions simply because the deponents are
outside the court’s subpoena power, and courts in the circuit have frequently
refused to tax their costs against a losing party. See, e.g. Chi. Bd. Options Exch.,
Inc. v. Int'l Sec. Exch., No. 07 C 623, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4701, 2014 WL
125937, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2014); Trading Techs. Int'l Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
9
750 F. Supp. 2d 962, 976 (N.D. Ill. 2010); Clearlamp, LLC v. LKQ Corp., No. 12
C 2533, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164705, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2016); Life Plans,
Inc. v. Sec. Life of Denver Ins. Co., 52 F. Supp. 3d 893, 898 (N.D. Ill. 2014).
Lincolnway provided additional support as to why Thomas Czartoski and Neal
Hammond might be unavailable: they were nonparties who were also outside of
the court’s subpoena power. Given that combination, the court agrees that it was
reasonable and necessary for Lincolnway to obtain copies of the video deposition
of Mr. Czartoski and Hammond, so it will tax their costs.
III.
Service of Summons and Subpoenas
CleanTech and GreenShift assert that the recovery of cost for service of
summons and subpoenas should be limited to what would have been expended
if the U.S. Marshals Service effectuated the process. Some defendants argue that
the use of a private server was reasonable and necessary, but the law in this
circuit is clear. When the prevailing party used a private process server, the party
may only be awarded costs measured by the marshal’s fees. Collins v. Gorman,
96 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1996). The court reduces each of the defendants’
requested fees for service of process to the fees which the Marshal service would
have charged. The Marshal’s charge is set by regulation at $65 per hour plus
travel costs and any other out of pocket expenses. Where the defendants provide
no information beyond the summons or subpoenas served, the court will tax the
plaintiffs only $65 per service or the actual cost, whichever is lower.
10
IV.
Exemplification and Copying
CleanTech and GreenShift argue that the court shouldn’t award several
defendants any printing costs because they didn’t make a showing as to what
the reproductions were for and why they were reasonable and necessary. The
prevailing party is “not required to submit a bill of costs containing a description
so detailed as to make it impossible economically to recover photocopying cost.”
Northbrook Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 924 F.2d 633,
643 (7th Cir. 1991). Instead, the party must “provide the best breakdown
obtainable from retained records.” Id.
CleanTech and GreenShift argue that GEA Mechanical Equipment,
Bushmill Ethanol, Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, and United Wisconsin
Grain Producers shouldn’t recover cost for copying. Those defendants have
provided some details, such as number of pages and the charge, but their
submission doesn’t describe what was copied nor are the documents identified
elsewhere in the bill of costs. As a result, the court can’t determine whether the
copies were necessary for use in this matter, and the court won’t award their
cost.
CleanTech and GreenShift also argue that Al-Corn’s recovery of costs for
copying should be limited to one set of copies. They contend that Al-Corn hasn’t
shown that the twelve-copy sets weren’t made solely for the convenience of
counsel. Al-Corn counters that the copies were used at the deposition of two of
the plaintiffs’ witnesses, and that twelve sets were needed to provide a copy to
the witnesses and the counsel present for the deposition. The court agrees with
11
Al-Corn that the twelve sets were necessary and reasonable, and will tax their
cost to the plaintiffs.
CleanTech and GreenShift argue that Lincolnway Energy shouldn’t recover
the $78.49 spent on black and white blow backs. Lincolnway doesn’t explain the
content or purpose of the blow backs, so the court won’t tax them against the
plaintiffs.
CleanTech and GreenShift argue that Heartland Corn Products shouldn’t
recover $358.61 in copying costs. One invoice in the bill of costs identifies the
documents copied as copies of articles of incorporation. Those copies were
reasonably necessary for use in this matter and the court will award their cost.
The other invoices don’t identify what was copied nor are the documents
identified elsewhere in the bill of costs. As a result, the court can’t determine
whether the copies were necessary for use in this matter, and the court won’t
award their cost.
CleanTech and GreenShift argue that Lincolnway Energy shouldn’t recover
$743.34 in exemplification and copying costs. Lincolnway Energy attached an
invoice to the bill of costs that attributes the expense to production of discovery.
The court finds that the cost is reasonably necessary for use in this matter and
will tax it against the plaintiff.
CleanTech and GreenShift object to an award for Iroquois Bio-Energy’s
exemplification material. Iroquois spent $551.05 to produce a poster for the
Markman hearing and laminated and mounted posters to be used at trial. The
12
court finds that those expenses were reasonable and necessary given the
complexity of the case.
V.
Witness fees
CleanTech and GreenShift object to an award for witness travel expenses
to ICM because ICM hasn’t provided any documentation for those expenses. ICM
responds that the travel expenses are reasonable. The award of costs for witness
fees under § 1920 is controlled by 28 U.S.C. § 1821. In addition to a daily witness
fee, § 1821(c)(2) allows for a travel allowance that equals the mileage allowed
under Administrator of General Services regulation. The current rate per mile is
$0.58.
(https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-pov-
etc/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates)(accessed
on
December 19, 2019). The court is entitled to accept the prevailing party’s
representation that it has complied with the statute in its calculation, SK Hand
Tool Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 852 F.2d 936, 944 (7th Cir. 1988), but ICM
provided the miles traveled for one witness- David Cantrell. Mr. Cantrell travelled
55 miles round trip, and ICM paid him $63.26 in mileage. This works out to a
rate of $1.15 per mile, which is almost twice the allowable rate. Based on this
calculation, the court will reduce the award of mileage costs to 1/1.98 of ICM’s
request.
13
VI.
Electronic Records and research
Iroquois Bio-Energy maintains that it should be able to recover costs for
searches of electronic records and legal research. Fees for searching electronic
records and for research aren’t recoverable under § 1920, but must be sought in
a motion for attorneys fees. Haroco, Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co., 38 F.3d
1429, 1440-1441 (7th Cir. 1994). The court won’t tax these costs against the
plaintiffs under § 1920.
VII.
Postage and conference calls
Iroquois Bio-Energy maintains that it should be able to recover costs for
Federal Express charges and conference calls. Costs for Federal Express charges
and conference calls aren’t recoverable under § 1920. Wahl v. Carrier Mfg. Co.,
511 F.2d 209, 217 (7th Cir. 1975). The court won’t tax these costs against the
plaintiffs under § 1920.
VIII.
Awards
The following charts summarize the result of each of the plaintiffs’
objections to the defendants’ bills of cost, total reduction, and award.
Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc
Objection
Response
Video deposition of Kevin Howes Withdrawn
Deposition
transcripts
for Contested
Charlie O’Brien
E-discovery services
Agreed
Research
Withdrawn
14
Ruling
Reduce by $592.50
Tax in full
Reduce by $1,030.85
Reduce by $206.77
Mediation
Travel and accommodation
Aemetis, Inc
Objection
Deposition transcript of Kevin
Howes
Deposition
transcripts
for
Charlie O’Brien
Deposition transcript of Andrew
Dorisio
Video deposition of Todd Waltz
E-discovery services
Pacer fees
Research
Mediation
Phone conference
Travel and accommodation
Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC
Objection
Video deposition of Kevin
Howes
Deposition
transcripts
for
Charlie O’Brien
Deposition transcript of Andrew
Dorisio
E-discovery services
Pacer fees
Research
Mediation
Phone conference
Travel and accommodation
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Total reduction
Total award
Reduce by $257.49
Reduce by $1504.55
$3,592.16
$1,896.21
Response
Withdrawn
Ruling
Reduce by $902.65
Contested
Reduce by $130.17
Contested
Reduce by $258.55
Withdrawn
Contested
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Total reduction
Total Award
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
$8,531.35
$2,306.87
Response
Withdrawn
Ruling
Reduce by $592.50
Contested
Award in full
Contested
Award in full
Contested
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Total reduction
Total Award
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
$5,779.10
$2,078.32
15
$275
$1,030.85
$452.10
$3,466.26
$284.53
$379.63
$1740.33
$371
$48.00
$3,335.45
$306.91
$377.76
$747.48
GEA Mechanical Equipment US,
Objection
Service
of
summons
or
subpoena
No costs for depo transcripts/
reduced to $3.65 per page for
original and $0.90 per page for
certified
Services
ordered
for
the
convenience of counsel
Video depos
Printing
Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC
Objection
Service
of
summons
or
subpoena
No costs for depo transcripts/
reduced to $3.65 per page for
original and $0.90 per page for
certified
Video depos
Printing
Blue Flint Ethanol LLC
Objection
Service
of
summons
or
subpoena
No costs for depo transcripts/
reduced to $3.65 per page for
original and $0.90 per page for
certified
Video depos
Printing
Inc.
Response
Contested
Ruling
Reduce by $772.26
Contested
Reduce by $29,885.53
Contested
Reduce by $400.35
Contested
Contested
Total reduction
Total Award
Reduce by $23,016
Reduce by $2,778
$56,852.14
$31,920.07
Response
Contested
Ruling
Reduce by $186.26
Contested
Reduce by $35,194.58
Contested
Reduce by $16,988
Contested
Total reduction
Total Award
Tax in full
$54,176.97
$14,763.89
Response
Contested
Ruling
Reduce by $590
Contested
Reduce by $29,539.57
Contested
Agreed
Total reduction
Total Award
Reduce by $9,145
Reduce by $3,475.99
$42,750.56
$9,408.73
16
Heartland Corn Products, LLC
Objection
Service
of
summons
or
subpoena
No costs for depo transcripts/
reduced to $3.65 per page for
original and $0.90 per page for
certified
Video depos
Printing
Bushmill Ethanol, Inc.
Objection
Service
of
summons
or
subpoena
No costs for depo transcripts/
reduced to $3.65 per page for
original and $0.90 per page for
certified
Video depos
Printing
Response
Contested
Ruling
Reduce by $60.75
Contested
Reduce by $3,217.08
Contested
Reduce by $2,573.77
Partially
Agreed,
partially
Contested
Total reduction
Total Award
Reduce by $3,276.55
Response
Contest
Ruling
Reduce by $60.75
Contest
Reduce by $8,826.38
Contested
Partially
Agreed,
partially
Contested
Total reduction
Total Award
Reduce by $2,573.77
Reduce by $948.08
Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. LLP
Objection
Response
Service
of
summons
or Contested
subpoena
No costs for depo transcripts/ Contested
reduced to $3.65 per page for
original and $0.90 per page for
certified
Video depos
Contested
17
$9,128.15
$6,601.9
$12,408.98
$2,896.13
Ruling
Reduce by $60.75
Reduce by $8,971.78
Reduce by $2,573.77
Printing
Partially
Agreed,
partially
Contested
Total reduction
Total Award
United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC
Objection
Response
Service
of
summons
or Contested
subpoena
No costs for depo transcripts/ Contested
reduced to $3.65 per page for
original and $0.90 per page for
certified
Video depos
Contested
Printing
ICM, Inc.
Objection
Reduce by $1,378.43
$12,984.73
$2,923.13
Ruling
Reduce by $60.75
Reduce by $8,944.29
Reduce by $3,091.27
Partially
Agreed,
partially
Contested
Total reduction
Total Award
Reduce by $1,378.43
Response
Ruling
$13,474.74
$2,722.65
Service
of
summons
or Contested
subpoena
Costs incidental to depositions Contested
Reduce by $1,110
No costs for depo transcripts/
reduced to $3.65 per page for
original and $0.90 per page for
certified
Video depos
Witness fees
Printing
Contested
Reduce by $55,242.35
Contested
Contested
Agree
Total reduction
Total Award
Reduce by $33,033.50
Reduce by $46.44
Reduce by $23,424.25
$111,745.62
$87,923.26
18
Award in full
Lincolnway Energy, LLC
Objection
No costs for depo transcripts/
reduced to $3.65 per page for
original and $0.90 per page for
certified
Video depos
Printing
Response
Contested
Ruling
Reduce by $38,808.83
Contested
Partially agree,
partially
Contested
Total reduction
Total Award
Reduce by $16,292.45
Reduce by $1,790.30
Iroquois Bio-Energy Company, Inc.
Objection
Response
No costs for depo transcripts/ Contested
reduced to $3.65 per page for
original and $0.90 per page for
certified
Video depos
Contested
Exemplification
Contested
Electronic records and legal Contested
research
Postage and conference calls
Contested
Total reduction
Total Award
Pacific Ethanol, Inc
Objection
Response
Deposition transcripts for Contested
Charlie O’Brien
E-discovery services
Agree
Pacer fees
Withdrawn
Research
Withdrawn
Fees to the clerk
Withdrawn
Mediation
Withdrawn
Phone conference
Withdrawn
Travel and accommodation
Withdrawn
Total reduction
Total Award
19
$56,891.58
$19,254.85
Ruling
Reduce by $36,086.67
Reduce by $18,796.13
Award in full
Reduce by $4,922.02
Reduce by $7,217.72
$67,022.54
$14,021.20
Ruling
Award in full
Reduce by $14,872.25
Reduce by $209.90
Reduce by $5,143.90
Reduce by $20
Reduce by $518.64
Reduce by $379.63
Reduce by $872.60
$22,016.92
$30,034.31
Pacific Ethanol Stockton, LLC
Objection
Deposition transcripts for
Charlie O’Brien
Deposition transcripts for
Andrew Dorisio
Pacer fees
Research
Mediation
Phone conference
Travel and accommodation
Response
Contested
Ruling
Award in full
Contested
Award in full
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Total reduction
Total Award
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
Reduce by
$4,022.76
$1,516.71
$31.30
$1,121.41
$302.23
$377.75
$2,190.07
SO ORDERED
ENTERED: January 15, 2020
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge, United States District Court
Distribution:
All Electronically Registered Counsel of Record
20
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?