On Demand Direct Response, LLC et al v. McCart-Pollak

Filing 359

ORDER that the pending motion to calculate costs (ECF No. 348 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 ON DEMAND DIRECT RESPONSE, LLC, et al., Case No.: 2:15-cv-01576-MMD-NJK Plaintiff(s), 12 13 v. 14 Order SHANA LEE MCCART-POLLAK, 15 16 [Docket No. 348] Defendant(s). On April 20, 2018, the Court granted Ms. McCart-Pollak’s motion to compel filed against 17 On Demand, and also awarded her costs. Docket No. 342. Now pending before the Court is Ms. 18 McCart-Pollak’s motion to calculate those costs. Docket No. 348. The deadline to respond has 19 expired, see Local Rule 7-2(b), and no response has been filed. Ms. McCart-Pollak seeks to 20 recover $147.42 in costs associated with the filing of the underlying motion (Docket No. 294) and 21 reply thereto (Docket No. 304), as well as for attending the hearing on February 23, 2018. See 22 Docket No. 348 at 2. The Court finds the costs requested to be excessive. Most significantly, the 23 Court will not award costs for large purchases of printer ink claimed in association with the reply 24 brief, but the bulk of which will undoubtedly be used elsewhere. The Court instead finds the 25 reasonable amount of costs incurred to be $60. On Demand shall pay Ms. McCart-Pollak that $60 26 in costs within 30 days of the issuance of this order. 27 28 1 1 Accordingly, the pending motion to calculate costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in 2 part. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: May 25, 2018 ______________________________ Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?