Clay et al v. New Tech Global Ventures L L C

Filing 213

MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER re 209 Motion for Partial Review of Clerk's Taxation of Costs. For the reasons herein, the motion is granted to the extent it seeks to have the Court review the Clerk's taxation of costs but is denied to the extent that it seeks to alter the Clerk's taxation of costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 4/15/2020. (crt,Alexander, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

Clay et al

Civil Action 6:16-cv-00296

Versus

Judge John W deGravelles

New Tech Global Ventures LLC

Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst

MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Review Of Clerk’s Taxation
Of Costs [Rec. Doc 209] and Defendant’s Response thereto [Rec. Doc. 211]. For the
reasons that follow, the motion is granted to the extent it seeks to have the Court
review the Clerk's taxation of costs but is denied to the extent that it seeks to alter
the Clerk's taxation of costs.
The jury trial of this matter began on September 16, 2019 and concluded on
September 18, 2019. On the last day of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
Defendant, New Tech Global Ventures, LLC. and against Plaintiffs, Michael Clay,
Larre G. Butler and Clayton Shamsie, dismissing all claims by Plaintiffs against
Defendant with prejudice, with costs awarded to Defendant from Plaintiffs. R. 201.
Following the trial, Defendant filed a motion seeking to recover from
Plaintiffs certain expenses incurred during the course of the litigation by having them
taxed as costs. R. 205. Plaintiff opposed the motion, R.206, and Defendants filed a
Reply, R. 207. The plaintiff objected to the Clerk's taxation of costs by filing a

motion seeking to have this Court review the Clerk's determination. R. 209.
1. Pro Hac Vice fees
The Clerk of Court disallowed disallowed all of the pro hac vice costs for
three out-of-state attorneys, finding that such fees are an expense that an attorney
pays for the privilege of practicing law in a district and, as such, are not
recoverable
2. Deposition Transcripts
The Clerk of Court ruled on the deposition costs are as follows (1) allowed
deposition costs of the plaintiffs, Clay, Butler and Shamsie; (2) allowed deposition
costs of Warren, Holbrook, Harvey and Anderson, the plaintiffs that were ultimately
dismissed from the case on a pretrial motion, R. 155, (3) disallowed deposition costs
of plaintiffs Deckard and Baker, as they failed to appear for their depositions, R. 137;
and, (4) allowed deposition costs of Jenkins, Cress and Chavez, who were either
called at trial or listed as a may call witness and the deposition was used in the joint
pretrial order,
3. Video Depositions
The Clerk disallowed the costs for the video depositions of plaintiffs Clay and
Butler because the written transcript of their depositions was available and was used.

2

4. Fees for Witnesses
The Clerk allowed the mileage, lodging, per diem (meals, etc.) and witness
fees for Cliffe, Cress. and Otis based on one day’s testimony and Chavez based on
testimony for two days.
5. Coping and Scanning Fees
The Clerk allowed costs for 2 Bench books as required by the Court.
The Clerk disallowed the costs for Defendant’s trial technician who coded and
uploaded exhibits to the computer software for trial presentation as being
unauthorized.
The Clerk authorized costs for transcripts for pre-trial court hearings relevant
to the ultimate disposition of the case as “necessary.”
Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally provides that
“costs—other than attorney's fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party....”
Thus, “Rule 54(d)(1) contains a strong presumption that the prevailing party will be
awarded costs.” Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 793 (5th Cir.2006). Under 28
U.S.C. § 1920, costs are allowed for deposition transcripts that are used at trial. The
party seeking costs bears the burden of supporting its request with evidence
documenting the costs incurred and proof that each item was obtained for use in the
case, Fogleman v. ARAMCO, 920 F.2d 278, 285–86 (5th Cir.1991), while the burden
3

is on the losing party to show the impropriety of taxing a particular deposition as a
cost. Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc., 557 F.2d 521, 526 (5th Cir.1977). A district
court has broad discretion to tax costs. Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d
1041,1049 (5th Cir.1998).
In this case, it is undisputed that the Defendant was the prevailing party at
trial. The Defendant was awarded $12,198,57 in costs. The Court has reviewed the
record related to Plaintiffs’ Motion, specifically Defendant’s Motion To Tax Costs,
attached Memorandum and Affidavit, R. 205-1, 205-3, Plaintiffs’ Objection
Memorandum and Costs Breakdown, R. 206, 206-1, and the Clerk of Court’s
Taxation of Costs, R. 208. The Clerk of Court meticulously considered each claim
submitted, pursuant to the statutory law and jurisprudence as well as practical
considerations in determining the costs awarded. Determining that the Clerk of
Court’s award of costs were reasonably and necessarily incurred in the successful
defense of Plaintiffs’ claims, the undersigned finds that this amount was properly
taxed by the Clerk of Court and can be recovered by the Defendant from the
Plaintiffs.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Review Of Clerk’s
Taxation Of Costs [Rec. Doc 209] is DENIED.
4

THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 15th day of April, 2020.

5