Hollingsworth v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 101

ORDER Sustaining in Part and Overruling in Part #91 Objection filed by Harry L Hollingsworth. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Harry L. Hollingsworth,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-11625
Honorable Sean F. Cox

Ford Motor Co. and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local 600,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S BILL OF COSTS
TAXED (Doc. #91).
This case is, at its core, a contract dispute. Plaintiff Harry Hollingsworth (“Plaintiff”) alleges
that Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) breached a Grievance Settlement Agreement after
Ford terminated Plaintiff’s employment. The Grievance Settlement Agreement was negotiated by
Defendant International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (“UAW”) on Plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff also alleges that the UAW breached
its duty of fair representation when it failed to file a grievance on Plaintiff’s behalf regarding Ford’s
alleged breach of the Grievance Settlement Agreement.
The Court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and thereafter entered
judgment in Defendants’ favor.1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the
Clerk of the Court’s entry of an award of taxed costs in favor of Ford in the amount of $2,300.00.

1

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on December 30, 2014. (Doc. #92).

(Doc. #91). For the following reasons, this Court shall SUSTAIN Plaintiff’s objection as to the
deposition transcript of Anthony Richard, OVERRULE Plaintiff’s objection as to the deposition
transcript of John Wright, and award taxed costs in favor of Ford in the amount of $1,856.70.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants in 36th District Court, Detroit, Michigan on March 12,
2013. Defendants removed the case to this Court on April 10, 2013. (Notice of Removal, Doc. #1).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged a “hybrid § 301” claim against Defendants pursuant to the Labor
Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, as well as a breach of contract claim
against Ford only. (Doc. #1 at Ex. 1).2
On December 17, 2014, this Court granted Ford’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
#52), granted UAW’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #50), and entered Judgment in favor
of Defendants. (Opinion and Order, Doc. #87; Judgment, Doc. #88). This Court did so based on
its finding that Plaintiff could not prevail on his hybrid § 301 LMRA claim against either party
because Plaintiff, as a retiree, could not prove that UAW owed him a duty of fair representation.
On December 22, 2014, Ford filed a Bill of Costs in the amount of $2,300.00. (Ford Bill of
Costs, Doc. #89). This amount represents a removal fee of $350.00 and deposition transcript fees
in the amount of $1,950.00. (Doc. #89). Included in Ford’s claimed transcript fees are amounts
associated with obtaining the deposition transcripts of John Wright ($ 493.90) and Anthony Richard
($443.30). (Doc. #89). Ford claims that these transcript costs are properly taxable because both of
these deposition transcripts were cited in Ford’s Motion for Summary Judgment—Statement of

2

This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim as preempted by the LMRA
claim. (Dec. 30, 2013 Opinion and Order, Doc. #25).
2

Material Facts Not In Dispute. (Ford Stmt. of Facts, Doc. #51). On December 23, 2014, the Clerk
of the Court taxed Ford’s Bill of Costs in the amount of $2,300.00, the full amount claimed. (Ford’s
Taxed Bill of Cost, Doc. #90).
Plaintiff objects to the amount of costs taxed against him in favor of Ford. Plaintiff argues
that this Court has the discretion to disallow costs, and should do so here, where the “issues are close
and difficult.” (Pl. Obj., Doc. #91 at 2). In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that costs for obtaining
the deposition transcripts of Anthony Richard and John Wright should be disallowed because they
were not reasonably necessary for Ford’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. #91 at 2).
Defendant Ford has not filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections.
APPLICABLE LAW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) governs taxation of costs. It provides, in pertinent
part:
(1) Costs Other Than Attorney’s Fees. 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. But costs against the United States, its officers, and its
agencies may be imposed only to the extent allowed by law. The clerk may tax costs
on 14 days’ notice. On motion served within the next 7 days, the court may review
the clerk’s action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Among other things, the Clerk of the Court may tax costs for “printed or
electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2).
“A deposition may be reasonably necessary if it is used in connection with a successful motion for
summary judgment.” Kaimowitz v. Howard, 547 F. Supp. 1345, 1353 (E.D. Mich. 1982), cited by
Pl. Obj. at 2; see also Chrysler Realty Co., LLC v. Design Forum Architects, Inc., 2009 WL 1514367
at *2 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (adopting Report and Recommendation). Local Rule 54.1 provides that
“[t]he clerk will tax costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) as provided in the Bill of Costs Handbook
3

available from the clerk’s office and the Court’s web site.”
ANALYSIS
The Court finds that the deposition transcript of Anthony Richard was not reasonably
necessary for use in conjunction with Ford’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1).
Anthony Richard was the UAW Representative with whom Plaintiff alleged to have communicated
regarding Ford’s deductions from Plaintiff’s Grievance Settlement checks.
In its Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute (“Statement”), Ford cited to Richard’s
Deposition Transcript in paragraphs 43 and 44. (Doc. #51 at ¶¶ 43, 44). Yet, Ford did not refer to
paragraph 43 or paragraph 44 of its Statement in either its opening brief or its reply brief. (See Ford
MSJ, Doc. #52 and Ford Reply, Doc. #65). In other words, Ford never relied, in whole or in part,
on Richard’s deposition testimony to show that it was entitled to summary judgment. Indeed, the
issue of whether Richard communicated with Ford or Plaintiff regarding Ford’s deductions from
Plaintiff’s checks was not central to Plaintiff’s claim against Ford, i.e. that Ford’s deductions from
the checks were improper. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Ford’s use of Richard’s
deposition transcript was necessarily obtained for use in connection with Ford’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
However, the same cannot be said of Ford’s use of John Wright’s deposition transcript. John
Wright is employed by Ford as a Manager of Arbitration and Wage Administration. (Wright Dec.,
Doc. #23 at Ex. 1). In its Statement, Ford cited Wright’s deposition transcript at least five times.
(Stmt., Doc. #51 at ¶¶ 16–18, 25, 30). John Wright testified regarding allegations central to
Plaintiff’s claim against Ford, including the reasons that Ford made deductions from Plaintiff’s
Grievance Settlement Checks. (See generally, Wright Dep., attached to Doc. #51 at Ex. 6). Ford

4

relied, at least in part, on John Wright’s deposition testimony in an attempt to show that Ford’s
deductions from the checks were proper. (Ford MSJ, Doc. #52 at 3). Therefore, the Court
concludes that John Wright’s deposition testimony was reasonably necessary for use in connection
with Ford’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff argues that the fact that this Court did not reference John Wright’s deposition in its
December 17, 2014 Opinion and Order shows that his deposition transcript was not reasonably
necessary. However, Plaintiff has provided no authority to support this assertion, and the applicable
law suggests otherwise. John Wright’s deposition testimony was necessary to support one of the
arguments that Ford asserted in its motion for summary judgment, even though the Court ultimately
granted summary judgment on other grounds. Therefore, the Court concludes that Ford, as a
prevailing party, is entitled to recovery of costs associated with obtaining the deposition transcript
of John Wright.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the Court shall SUSTAIN IN PART and OVERRULE IN PART
Plaintiff’s Objections to Ford’s Taxed Bill of Costs. Defendant Ford is hereby awarded costs in the
amount of $1,856.70. Defendant Ford is not entitled to costs associated with the deposition of
Anthony Richard.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: March 30, 2015

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Harry L. Hollingsworth,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-11625
Honorable Sean F. Cox

Ford Motor Co. and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local 600,
Defendants.
______________________________/
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
March 30, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager

6