Steeg v. Vilsack
Filing
115
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 11/13/2017 denying 103 Motion for reduction and/or elimination of costs ; denying 105 Motion for Reconsideration. cc: Counsel, plaintiff pro se(KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-00086-TBR
JAMI W. STEEG,
PLAINTIFF
v.
THOMAS J. VILSACK,
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jami W. Steeg’s motion for reduction and/or
elimination of costs, [DN 103] and motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order imposing
costs, [DN 105.] Defendant Secretary of Agriculture Thomas J. Vilsack’s responded, [DN 113],
and Defendant replied, [DN 98.] Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for adjudication, and for the
following reasons, Plaintiff’s motions, [DN 103; DN 105], are DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This action came before the Court for a trial by jury on November 7, 2016. [DN 42
(Scheduling Order).] On November 10, 2016, the jury returned its verdict, finding that Defendant
did not sexually harass or retaliate against Plaintiff. [See DN 90 (Jury Verdict).] The Court
thereafter entered judgment in Defendant’s favor on all claims. [DN 92 (Judgment).] Defendant
timely submitted a verified motion for costs, accompanied by invoices of the various expenses.
[See DN 96 (Verified Motion for Costs) and accompanying exhibits.] Defendant’s trial counsel,
Assistant United States Attorney Jessica Malloy, stated that the costs Defendant seeks were
necessarily incurred in this case. [DN 96-2.] Defendant sought to recover three costs: (1) the
costs associated with deposing seven individuals who testified at trial, 2) the cost of obtaining
1
transcripts of Plaintiff’s phone recordings, and 3) witness attendance costs for six witnesses.1
[See DN 96-1 at 1–7 (Memorandum in Support of Verified Motion for Costs).] The Court
granted Defendants motion with respect to each of those categories of costs. [DN 100.]
Thereafter, Plaintiff appealed the Court’s decision as to costs to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals, [DN 101.] Plaintiff then filed a motion for reduction or elimination of the costs
imposed by the Court and a separate letter, which the Court construes as a motion requesting the
Court to reconsider its Order imposing such costs. [DN 103; DN 105.] Before the Sixth Circuit
can address Plaintiff’s appeal, the Court must rule on her pending motions. [DN 108 (Notice
from United States Court of Appeals).]
STANDARD
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide expressly for “motions for
reconsideration,” courts generally construe such motions as motions to alter or amend a
judgment under Rule 59(e). E.g., Moody v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 915 F.2d 201, 206
(6th Cir. 1990); Taylor v. Colo. State Univ., Civil Action No. 5:11-CV-00034-TBR, 2013 WL
1563233, at *8-9 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 12, 2013). Rule 59(e) motions “must be filed no later than 28
days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Pursuant to Rule 59(e), “a court may
alter the judgment based on: ‘(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an
intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.’” Leisure
Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Intera
Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005)). “A district court, generally speaking,
has considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant [such a] motion, and as a result [the
1
Though Defendant also initially sought reimbursement for certain expert witness fees, [DN 96-1 at 7], after
Plaintiff objected to those costs, Defendant withdrew its request for those fees. [DN 97 at 3–4; DN 98 at 5.]
Accordingly, those costs were not awarded.
2
Sixth Circuit] review[s] these types of decisions for abuse of discretion.” Id. (citing Morse v.
McWhorter, 290 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir. 2002)).
DISCUSSION
In her instant motions, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its Order awarding
costs in the amount of $6,706.91 to Defendant by either reducing or entirely eliminating the
amount. [DN 103; DN 105.] Plaintiff also submitted a letter from her mother urging the Court to
reconsider the award of costs. [DN 106 (Letter from Cheryl Steeg).] Additionally, Plaintiff sent
another letter to the Court questioning the necessity of costs related to various witnesses. [DN
114.]
In her motions, Plaintiff largely makes arguments that were already raised in her response
to Defendant’s motion for costs, [DN 97.] For instance, Plaintiff argues that the videotaping her
deposition was unnecessary, that many other transcripts and recordings were unnecessary or not
used at trial, and that the travel, lodging, and per diem expenses for many witnesses were
unreasonable. [DN 103; DN 105; DN 114.] Plaintiff previously made each of these arguments,
however, [DN 97], and the Court addressed each in its Order imposing costs. [DN 100.]
Therefore, the Court will not rehash these arguments here.
It appears that the only new argument Plaintiff raises in her motions is a claim that the
USDA failed to properly submit all documentation of its costs and expenses, [DN 103 at 1; DN
105 at 6.]2 For instance, Plaintiff claims that “[t]here w[ere] a few receipts that were also missing
per my attorney and my findings.” [DN 105 at 6.] However, Plaintiff does not specify which
costs she claims were allegedly unsubstantiated by the appropriate receipts. Moreover, the Sixth
Circuit has repeatedly held that, under Rule 59(e), “a motion to reconsider generally is not a
2
Though Plaintiff also appears to argue that the trial was rushed and that jurors were ready to go home on the last
day of trial, [DN 103 at 2], these are not grounds for reducing the United States’ award of costs, and therefore the
Court will not address these arguments.
3
vehicle to reargue a case; it may not be used to raise arguments that could have been raised on
initial consideration.” United States v. LaDeau, 734 F.3d 561, 572 (6th Cir. 2013); see also
Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ’g, LLC, 477 F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[P]arties
cannot use a motion for reconsideration to raise new legal arguments that could have been raised
before a judgment was issued.”). Here, Plaintiff and her attorney had a full and complete
opportunity to review the United States’ documentation of its costs and expenses upon this
Court’s initial consideration of the United States’ motion for costs. Nowhere in Plaintiff’s
response to that motion did she ever mention a lack of proper documentation. [See DN 97
(Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Costs).] Accordingly, the Court will not
consider that argument now.
Finally, both Plaintiff and her mother urge the Court that Plaintiff was the subject of
workplace harassment which caused her great emotional distress and harm, and therefore that
Plaintiff should not be charged with the costs of bringing suit. The Court sympathizes with
Plaintiff, but must note that the jury did not find in favor of Plaintiff on her claims at trial. And,
as the Court explained in its Order granting costs, the law is clear that “costs--other than
attorney’s fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The Court
thoroughly reviewed the United States’ requested costs in its motion, and, after determining each
were reasonable and necessary, awarded the amount of $6,706.91. The Court does not find that
Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 59(e)’s standard of demonstrating an error of law, newly discovered
evidence, an intervening change in the law, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. See Leisure
Caviar, 616 F.3d at 615 (quoting Intera Corp., 428 F.3d at 620). Therefore, Plaintiff has not
convinced the Court that it should reconsider its prior Order awarding costs to the United States.
4
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff’s motion for reduction or elimination of costs
incurred due to trial, [DN 103], and motion for reconsideration, [DN 105], are DENIED. IT IS
SO ORDERED.
Date:
cc:
November 13, 2017
Counsel
and
Jami Steeg
271 Titanium Ln
Jackson, MO 63755
PRO SE
5
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?