V'Guara Inc. v. Steve Dec et al
Filing
209
ORDER that 208 Motion for an Order to Require Plaintiff to Pay Deposition Travel Expense is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
MIREK WIERZBOWSKI,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
v.
13
STEVE DEC,
14
Defendant(s).
15
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:13-cv-0076-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 208)
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion regarding payment of expenses for depositions.
Docket No. 208. The motion is defective in numerous respects.
18
First, the motion includes conclusory assertions that a pre-filing conference was conducted. Id.
19
at 5. The local rules provide that such certification must be made through a declaration providing
20
detailed information regarding the unsuccessful conference. See, e.g., Local Rule IA 1-3(f)(2).
21
Second, the motion identifies brow-raising costs for travel, such as seeking $861 to cover a rental
22
car and round trip airfare from Pittsburgh to Chicago. Docket No. 208 at 3-4. A cursory search on the
23
Internet reveals numerous nonstop round-trip flights in two weeks from Pittsburgh to Chicago for under
24
$200 on United Airlines, American Airlines, and Southwest Airlines, and one-day rental car options for
25
less than $100. Similarly, the motion seeks $340 for a one-way ticket for lead counsel from Boston to
26
Pittsburgh, id. at 4, when a cursory Internet search reveals several nonstop one-way flights for under
27
$150 on American Airlines and JetBlue Airways. The support for Defendant’s significantly higher
28
estimations is a conclusory statement that expenses were researched by lead counsel. Id. at 4 n.3. This
1
is plainly insufficient.1 Any estimation of costs must be supported by a declaration and supporting
2
documentation.
3
Third, the motion fails to sufficiently explain why each cost sought from Plaintiff is reasonably
4
necessary. By way of example, Defendant appears to seek hotel expenses for each deposition despite
5
the short time required for lead counsel’s regional travel and despite recognizing that each deposition
6
is presumptively limited to seven hours on one day pursuant to Rule 30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of
7
Civil Procedure. Docket No. 208 at 3. Moreover, Defendant must explain why both of his attorneys
8
need to appear for the depositions and why Plaintiff should bear the costs for both attorneys to appear.
9
Lastly, it appears that the motion may be premature as deposition notices may not have been
10
served yet. See Docket No. 208 at 3. As a result, Defendant speculates about some of the costs it will
11
seek, such as a rental car if the depositions are far from the airport. See id. at 2 n.1; see also Docket No.
12
203 at 3 n.2 (“To the extent the parties contest the location of the deposition, the ability to appear at the
13
deposition remotely, and/or costs associated with the deposition, those are issues better left to the meet-
14
and-confer process after the facts are known” (emphasis added)).
15
For these reasons, the pending motion is DENIED without prejudice.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
DATED: June 23, 2017
18
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The showing is especially lacking for any expenses that may be incurred by Defendant’s local
counsel, as there is only a fleeting statement that “the fares and travel expenses for Ms. Marr to travel from
Las Vegas will be similar” to those identified by lead counsel for his expenses. See Docket No. 208 at 4.
2
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?