WIDI v. MCNEIL et al

Filing 527

ORDER ON MOTION FOR COSTS OF SUIT By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (ccs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
DAVID J. WIDI, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL MCNEIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00188-JAW

ORDER ON MOTION FOR COSTS OF SUIT
On August 17, 2017, David J. Widi, Jr. moved this Court for his costs of suit in
his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) claim against the United States Attorney’s
Office (USAO) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Opp’n to the U.S. Att’y’s Office’s Mot. to Compel Payment of Unpaid Filing Fees and
Revoke Pl.’s IFP Status with Accompanying Mot. for Award of Costs of Suit (ECF No.
481, 482) (Pl.’s Mot.). On August 29, 2017, the Defendants objected to Mr. Widi’s
motion. EOUSA’s and ATF’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Costs (ECF No. 482) (ECF No.
484) (Defs.’ Opp’n). Mr. Widi’s reply was due by September 12, 2017, but he did not
file a reply.
In his motion, Mr. Widi alleges that he prevailed against the USAO and
against the ATF in his FOIA claim and therefore he maintains that he should be
entitled to an award of costs. Pl.’s Mot. at 3-4. Without conceding the merits of Mr.
Widi’s motion, USAO and ATF respond that Mr. Widi’s motion is premature. Defs.’
Opp’n at 1-2.

`

The Court agrees with USAO and ATF that the motion for bill of costs is
premature. Local Rule 54.3, Bill of Costs, reads in part:
Bills of Cost shall be prepared on forms available from the Clerk’s Office
or on a filing substantially similar and shall be filed with supporting
memoranda and documentation within thirty (30) days of the expiration
of the time for fling a timely appeal if no notice of appeal has been filed
or within 30 days of the filing of the appellate mandate providing for
final disposition of any appeal to the Court of Appeals.
D. ME. LOC. R. 54.3. Preliminarily, Mr. Widi has not complied with the part of Local
Rule 54.3 that requires the Bill of Costs to be submitted on a form “available from the
Clerk’s Office or on a filing substantially similar.” Id. But, more significantly, on
September 20, 2017, Mr. Widi filed an appeal of the Court’s judgment on the FOIA
count and therefore, he must await “the filing of the appellate mandate providing for
final disposition of any appeal to the Court of Appeals” before filing his Bill of Costs.
Id. Assuming that he is entitled to costs at the end of his appeal, the Court reminds
Mr. Widi that he should file his motion on the form available from the Clerk’s Office
or on a filing substantially similar.
The Court DISMISSES without prejudice David J. Widi, Jr.’s Opposition to the
United States Attorney’s Office’s Motion to Compel Payment of Unpaid Filing Fees
and Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP Status with Accompanying Motion for Award of Costs of
Suit (ECF No. 481, 482) but only insofar as Mr. Widi moved for an award of costs of
suit. This Order does not affect his opposition to the Government’s motion to compel
payment.

2

SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 15th day of November, 2017

3