Lord & Taylor, LLC v. White Flint, L.P.
Filing
483
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 480 MOTION to Review the Clerk's Order Taxing Costs; affirming in part and reversing in part 479 Clerk's Order Taxing Costs/ awarding the full amount of the Bill of Costs in the amount of $112,007.20; canceling the Motions Hearing scheduled for October 3, 2018. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 9/11/2018. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
LORD & TAYLOR, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WHITE FLINT, L.P., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. RWT 13-cv-1912
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Over five years ago, Plaintiffs Lord & Taylor, LLC and LT Propco LLC
(“Lord & Taylor”) sued Defendant White Flint, L.P. (“White Flint”) alleging that White Flint
violated its agreement with Lord & Taylor to operate a mall by demolishing the building and
vacating other tenants. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 5–7, 12–13, 21–23. After a multi-week jury trial in 2015,
Lord & Taylor secured a verdict of $31 million, which was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit.
ECF Nos. 395, 440–41. Lord & Taylor subsequently filed its Bill of Costs, ECF No. 448, which
the Clerk reviewed, ultimately awarding Lord & Taylor $109,033.08 of the requested
$112,007.20, ECF No. 479 at 1–2. White Flint is now asking the Court to review the Clerk’s
Order Taxing Costs (“Clerk’s Order”). ECF No. 480.
1.
Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides: “Unless a federal statute, these rules,
or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the
prevailing party.” The Fourth Circuit has held that “the rule creates the presumption that costs
are to be awarded to the prevailing party.” Cherry v. Champion Int’l Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 446
(4th Cir. 1999). Thus, “it is incumbent upon the unsuccessful party to show circumstances
sufficient to overcome the presumption favoring an award of costs to the prevailing party.”
Ellis v. Grant Thornton LLP, 434 F. App’x 232, 235 (4th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing
Teague v. Bakker, 35 F.3d 978, 996 (4th Cir. 1994)).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1920 sets forth the costs that a judge or clerk of any United States court
may award, including “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts.” 28 U.S.C. §
1920(2). To be taxable, a transcript must be “necessarily obtained for use in the case,” id., and
“reasonably necessary at the time of its taking.” LaVay Corp. v. Dominion Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 830 F.2d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 1987). “[I]n determining whether to award deposition
transcript costs, a court examines whether the deposition was reasonably necessary to the
prevailing party’s case at the time it was taken, not whether it was actually admitted at trial.”
Simmons v. O’Malley, 235 F. Supp. 2d 442, 443 (D. Md. 2002) (citing LaVay, 830 F.2d at 528)
(awarding costs for deposition transcripts of parties and expert witnesses).
In this Court, under the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Guidelines for Bills of Costs (2013) (“Guidelines”), taxation of costs is entrusted to the Clerk in
the first instance, but the Clerk’s discretion to award costs is limited. Id. at 1. In the exercise of
this discretion, the Clerk may not tax costs not permitted by statute, case law, or local guidelines.
Id.
The court reviews de novo the Clerk’s taxation of costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1);
Schwartz v. Rent-A-Wreck of Am., No. PJM 07-1679, 2016 WL 3906581, at *2 (D. Md. July 14,
2016). “Although the district court has the discretion to deny an award of costs, it must
‘articulat[e] some good reason’ for its denial.” Ellis, 434 F. App’x at 235 (alteration in Ellis)
(quoting Cherry, 186 F.3d at 446). “Among the factors that justify denying an award of costs
are: (1) misconduct by the prevailing party; (2) the unsuccessful party’s inability to pay the
2
costs; (3) the excessiveness of the costs in a particular case; (4) the limited value of the
prevailing party’s victory; or (5) the closeness and difficulty of the issues decided.” Id. (citing
Cherry, 186 F.3d at 446).
In other words, there must “‘be an element of injustice in a
presumptive cost award.’” Id. (quoting Cherry, 186 F.3d at 446).
2.
Analysis
The Court will not exercise its discretion to deny Lord & Taylor’s Bill of Costs. The
Court finds no basis to do so as the Ellis factors are not present in this case: (1) Lord & Taylor
did not commit misconduct (nor does White Flint allege that it did); (2) White Flint has
presented no evidence of its inability to pay the costs; (3) given the nature and length of the
litigation and extensive discovery required, the costs are not excessive; (4) Lord & Taylor’s jury
verdict was significant; and (5) although White Flint argues that the Fourth Circuit opined on one
issue of first impression, ECF No. 480-1 at 3, courts that have denied costs based on a case’s
closeness and difficulty “generally have done so following a lengthy trial that adjudicated novel
issues.” Grochowski v. Sci. Applications Int’l Corp., No. ELH-13-3771, 2017 WL 121743, at *4
(D. Md. Jan. 12, 2017) (collecting cases).
To the extent White Flint objects to the Clerk’s Order, having conducted a de novo
review, the Court finds that the Clerk’s taxation was appropriate. Among White Flint’s principal
objections are to the costs of deposition transcripts for Eugene Kahn, Lawrence Lerner, and
Francine Waters. ECF No. 480-1 at 15. The Clerk denied Lord & Taylor these costs because the
witnesses “were not noticed by Defendant, did not testify at trial, and the[] transcripts were not
used in support of any motion.” ECF No. 479 at 7–8. The Clerk correctly stated that “the list of
examples of taxable deposition categories in the Guidelines is not exhaustive,” but found that
“the justification for these transcripts falls short of the reasonably necessary standard.” Id. at 8.
3
Moreover, the Clerk noted that Lord & Taylor “did not respond to Defendant’s challenges of
these costs.” Id.
The Court disagrees with the Clerk’s analysis of these costs. In a footnote in its Reply in
Support of its Bill of Costs (“Reply”), Lord & Taylor states that Lawrence Lerner was one of
White Flint’s party representatives, and Eugene Khan was one of White Flint’s named experts.
ECF No. 482-2 at 10 n.5. “Reasonable trial preparation . . . ordinarily includes review of the
deposition transcripts of the parties and their experts, either to prepare one’s own witnesses for
cross-examination or to prepare to perform the cross-examination of the adverse party and her
witnesses.” Simmons, 235 F. Supp. 2d at 443. Accordingly, White Flint’s objections to the costs
of Mr. Lerner’s and Mr. Khan’s deposition transcripts are overruled, and the costs will be
awarded.
In its Memorandum in Support of its Bill of Costs and Reply, Lord & Taylor asserts that
Francine Waters was identified by White Flint as a person with knowledge of relevant facts.
ECF Nos. 482-1 at 11, 482-2 at 10 n.5. White Flint concedes that Ms. Waters’s deposition was
reasonably necessary1 but argues that it does not “fall within any of the taxable categories
enumerated in the Guidelines.” ECF No. 480-1 at 15. As noted in the Clerk’s Order, however,
the list of categories is “not exhaustive,” ECF No. 479 at 8, and the Guidelines are not binding
on this Court. Moreover, the deposition of an individual identified by the opposing party as
possessing relevant information meets the LaVay standard of being reasonably necessary. Thus,
in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the cost of Ms. Waters’s deposition transcript will
be awarded.
1
White Flint asserts that “a party must both show that a transcript was reasonably necessary and identify the
taxable category within which it falls. Lord & Taylor has not done the latter with respect to . . . Ms. Waters.”
ECF No. 480 at 15 (emphasis in original).
4
Accordingly, it is, this 11th day of September, 2018, by the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland hereby
ORDERED, that the Motion for Review of the Clerk’s Order Taxing Costs
[ECF No. 480] is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk’s Order Taxing Costs [ECF No. 479] is AFFIRMED in part
and REVERSED in part; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs are AWARDED the full amount in the Bill of Costs
($112,007.20) [ECF No. 448]; and it is further
ORDERED, that the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Review of the Clerk’s Order
Taxing Costs currently scheduled for October 3, 2018 is CANCELLED.
/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?