Black v. Buffalo Meat Service, Inc. d/b/a Boulevard Black Angus a/k/a Black Angus Meats a/k/a Black Angus Meats & Seafood et al
Filing
132
DECISION AND ORDER -- IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Defendants' Bill of Costs (Docket No. 125) is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Signed by William M. Skretny, United States District Judge on 10/19/2021. (JCM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DARCY M. BLACK,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
v.
15-CV-49S
BUFFALO MEAT SERVICE, INC. d/b/a
BOULEVARD BLACK ANGUS a/k/a BLACK
ANGUS MEATS a/k/a BLACK ANGUS MEATS
& SEAFOOD, et al.,
Defendants.
I.
Introduction
This is an employment discrimination action in which this Court granted
Defendants’ Motion (Docket No. 106) for Summary Judgment dismissing the case
(Docket No. 123, 2021 WL 2043006, familiarity with this Decision and Order is presumed).
Now before this Court is Defendants’ Bill of Costs (Docket No. 125) seeking to tax
$10,844.70 for transcription of depositions. Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in opposition to
the Bill of Costs (Docket No. 128) and Defendants replied (Docket No. 130).
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Bill of Costs (Docket No. 125) is
granted. With the disposition of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket
Nos. 106, 123), they are prevailing parties. Their costs are substantiated and reasonable
and this Court allows recovery of the entire $10,844.70 claimed.
II.
Background
A. Facts and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
In this case, Plaintiff Darcy Black alleged sex and race discrimination from a hostile
work environment arising from statements made to her, to other female or minority
employees, and to (or about) minority customers. Plaintiff claimed discrimination by
Defendants Buffalo Meat Service and named management employees (Robert Seibert,
Diane Seibert, and Keegan Roberts) under several federal and New York State civil rights
and employment discrimination laws (Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e-2000e-17; the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d); 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and the
New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. §§ 290-301, 296). Plaintiff alleged
parallel causes of action under federal (Docket No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 61-71, 81-89, 98-108,
118-26) and state law (id. ¶¶ 73-79, 91-96, 110-16, 128-33).
Defendants moved for summary judgment (Docket No. 106) and this Court granted
that Motion declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s parallel New
York State Human Rights Law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. Black v.
Buffalo Meat Serv., Inc., No. 15CV49, 2021 WL 2043006, at *30, 31 (W.D.N.Y. May 21,
2021) (Skretny, J.) (Docket No. 123).
Following entry of judgment (Docket No. 124), Defendants filed the pending Bill of
Costs (Docket No. 125). Days later Plaintiff filed her Notice of Appeal (Docket No. 126;
see Black v. Buffalo Meat Serv., No. 21-1468 (2d Cir.)). Following Plaintiff’s objections
(Docket No. 128) and Defendants’ response (Docket No. 130), the Court Clerk deferred
action on the Bill of Costs to this Court. Upon this briefing, the Bill of Costs is deemed
submitted without oral argument.
2
III.
Discussion
A. Applicable Standards—Bill of Costs
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that “costs—other than attorneys’
fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party,” see Lopez v. Webster Cent. Sch. Dist.,
No. 05CV6473, 2010 WL 11688583 at *1 (W.D.N.Y. July 16, 2010) (Siragusa, J.). This
Court retains discretion to determine which costs to allow, id. The party seeking to
recover costs bears the burden of adequately documenting and itemizing the costs
requested, Anello v. Anderson, 191 F. Supp. 3d 262, 285 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (Skretny, J.).
A party is not entitled to recover costs when its application fails to substantiate the costs
claimed, see Mendez v. Radec Corp., 907 F. Supp. 2d 353, 360 (W.D.N.Y. 2012)
(Telesca, J.). Under this Court’s Local Civil Rule 54(f) and its Guidelines for Bills of Costs,
unless ordered either by this Court or by the Court of Appeals filing an appeal does not
stay the taxation of costs, W.D.N.Y. Loc. Civ. R. 54(f); W.D.N.Y. Guidelines for Bills of
Costs (hereinafter “WDNY Guidelines”) Part I.F.2.
B. Contentions
Defendants claim $10,844.70 in printed deposition transcripts as a cost, submitting
invoices for thirteen depositions (Docket No. 125).
Plaintiff objects on four grounds (Docket No. 128, Pl. Memo.). First, she argues
Defendants are not prevailing parties because this Court merely dismissed her state
causes of action without prejudice (Docket No. 128, Pl. Memo. at 1).
Second, the deposition transcript costs claimed here were for both federal and
state claims. Plaintiff contends that Defendants only could recover costs under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920(2) for transcripts “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff,
3
however, does not argue for reducing costs by those required for dismissal of the federal
claims. She argues that if Defendants are awarded these costs in federal court and then
prevail in state court, Plaintiff might face double costs unnecessarily (id. at 2, citing Singer
v. Harris, No. 15-CV-00408, 2017 WL 5054278, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 14, 2017)).
Third, Plaintiff argues the Bill of Costs was premature given her pending appeal
(id.).
Finally, Plaintiff objects to the sufficiency of Defendants’ documentation of the
deposition expenses for depositions by not stating the number of pages transcribed or
the per page rate as required by this Court’s Bill of Costs Guidelines (id.).
Defendants’ reply acknowledged that the original invoices submitted with the Bill
of Costs lacked itemization of pages transcribed and per page costs (Docket No. 130,
Defs. Atty. Decl. ¶ 5; id., Defs. Reply Memo. at 3). Upon their request, one court reporter
submitted to Defendants twelve amended invoices complete with per page rates and the
number of pages transcribed (Docket No. 130, Defs. Atty. Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. A). Sue Ann
Simonin Court Reporting supplemented its invoices charging between $3.05 and $3.35
per page for the twelve depositions it transcribed (id. Ex. A)
Meanwhile, the thirteenth invoice in the original Bill of Costs from another court
reporter, Michelle McLaughlin, stated the per page rate (id. ¶ 8, charging $3.65 per page
for transcribing the July 13, 2018, deposition (Docket No 125, Bill of Costs, Ex.). With
these supplemented invoices, Defendants conclude that the amounts charged were
reasonable and substantiated and thus should be taxed (Docket No. 130, Defs. Reply
Memo. at 3-4).
4
Defendants next assert that they were the prevailing parties because they
succeeded on much of the resolved claims (Docket No. 130, Defs. Reply Memo. at 1),
even if certain state law claims were dismissed without prejudice (id. at 2, citing Lopez,
supra, 2010 WL 11688583 at *1).
Next, Defendants assert that this Court’s Local Civil Rule 54(f) provides that the
filing of an appeal does not stay the taxation of costs (id. at 4).
C. Whether Defendants Are Prevailing Parties
First, only prevailing parties may recover costs, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Plaintiff
relies upon Singer v. Harris, 2017 WL 5054278, for the proposition that a remanded claim
to state court precludes the finding that a defendant was a prevailing party (Docket
No. 125, Pl. Memo. at 2). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas in Singer, however, held that David Singer’s assertion that defendant
Dennis Milligan was not a prevailing party was incorrect because a federal judgment was
entered for Milligan thus Milligan was the prevailing party for Rule 54(d) purposes,
2017 WL 5054278 at *1. This is despite the federal court remanding a state claim to state
court, id.
This Court agrees with Singer and Judge Siragusa in Lopez that the dismissal of
federal claims here makes these Defendants prevailing parties for taxation of costs
purposes, id.; Lopez, supra, 2010 WL 11688583, at *1. Defendants prevail for taxation
purposes despite dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff’s state law claims because the
federal Complaint was dismissed in its entirety, Singer, supra, 2017 WL 5054278, at *1;
Lopez, supra, 2010 WL 11688583, at *1; Bond v. Sterling, Inc., No. 97-CV-1607, 2000 WL
5
152031, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2000). Thus, Plaintiff’s objection on this ground is
rejected.
D. Avoiding Double Recovery of Costs
This Court has discretion in setting the appropriate amount of costs to be taxed,
see Lopez, supra 2010 WL 1168583, at *1. Plaintiff next raises the specter of paying
twice for the deposition transcriptions as costs in this Court and later in state court (Docket
No. 128, Pl. Memo. at 2). Plaintiff argues that the depositions would be used in a state
action as well as their use in this federal case. If Defendants were to prevail again,
Plaintiff fears Defendants may seek to tax the costs of these transcriptions as
disbursements. (Id.)
The court in Singer reduced the costs awarded to defendant Milligan by eliminating
the transcription costs to avoid unnecessary double costs if Singer lost in state court,
Singer, supra, 2017 WL 5054278 at *1. In that case (but unlike Black here), Singer had
a pending state court action while Milligan’s Bill of Costs was pending, id.
In Black’s pending case, however, there is no pending New York State action in
which the depositions taken here could be reused. Several conditions not currently met
would be needed before Plaintiff would face duplicate liability for transcript costs. First,
this Court would have to tax the full transcription cost. Then Plaintiff would need to sue
in New York State court, but later lose. Then Defendants would have attempted to recoup
(again) the transcription costs as a disbursement, see N.Y. CPLR 8301(a)(9) ($250
disbursement for transcription). None of these conditions presently exist to have Plaintiff
now face a duplication of costs.
6
New York civil procedure also limits the amount a prevailing party may recover for
deposition costs as a disbursement, id., CPLR 8301(a)(9), 8303(a)(2) (allowance in a
“difficult or extraordinary case” of 5% of sum recovered not exceeding $3,000).
Defendants seek over $10,800 for transcripts to date; if fully claimed, this is an amount
exceeding New York State’s limits if Defendants sought another recovery as a New York
State court disbursement.
While the federal and state claims in this case were alleged in parallel and the
depositions covered both categories of claims, any duplication of costs argument is for
the state court to resolve (if necessary). This Court will tax the transcription costs incurred
in this case despite the potential reuse of the transcripts in a future state action. Now,
Plaintiff’s concern is speculative. Given the uncertainties whether that action would be
commenced or whether Defendants would prevail in that action and the limitations on
disbursements they could then claim, the state court is better suited to deal with objections
to those disbursements and any arguments of duplication should that scenario occur.
This Court is unaware of a pending state court action. As she argued (Docket
No. 128, Pl. Memo. at 2), Plaintiff has pending an appeal of this Court’s Decision and
Order and probably has not commenced a state action (and may not do so until that
appeal has been litigated). Plaintiff’s fear of a duplicate cost award only arises if she does
not prevail in a yet-to-be commenced state action. The state court considering that
disbursement then would be in a better posture to consider whether to grant these costs
or not (subject to the limits in the CPLR).
This Court thus rejects Plaintiff’s duplication objection to taxing costs.
7
E. Timing of Bill of Costs and Plaintiff’s Appeal
Under this Court’s Local Civil Rule 54(f) and WDNY Guidelines, “unless otherwise
ordered by the District Court, or the Circuity Court of Appeals pursuant to Fed. R. App.
P. 9, the filing of an appeal shall not stay the taxation of costs,” WDNY Guidelines
Part I.F.2 (but cf. id. Part I.F.1., this Court defers consideration of a Bill of Costs until
resolution of a pending post-judgment motion).
This Court here has not stayed taxation of costs pending the appeal. Plaintiff filed
her Notice of Appeal days after Defendants filed their Bill of Costs, but she did not seek
any stay of the Bill. Reviewing the Circuit Court’s docket for Plaintiff’s appeal, Black v.
Buffalo Meat Serv., No. 21-1468, this Court is not aware of an Order from the Court of
Appeals staying taxation of costs here.
This Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that taxation of costs is premature while her
appeal is pending. Insofar as this Court is concerned, the Judgment entered here is final
and costs may be taxed. Thus, Plaintiff’s appellate objection is rejected.
F. Sufficient Documentation of Claimed Costs
Finally, Plaintiff objects to the lack of support for the costs claimed (Docket
No. 128, Pl. Memo. at 2). Defendants acknowledged the deficiencies in the original
supporting invoices for the Bill of Costs and supplemented with invoices stating the per
page rate and the number of pages transcribed by one court reporter. Confirming the
court reporter’s calculations, the rates charged are substantiated and reasonable.
Therefore, this Court accepts the total claimed transcription costs and denied Plaintiff’s
objection on this ground.
8
IV.
Conclusion
Defendants’ Bill of Costs (Docket No. 125) to tax $10,844.70 is granted in its
entirety. The Bill of Costs is not stayed by Order of this Court or of the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit due to the pending appeal. Defendants are prevailing parties
despite Plaintiff having potential claims that she could raise in state court. Since these
claims are potential, any risk of duplicate charges for the transcripts used in both this
Court and state court is for the state court to adjudicate. Having been compensated by
taxing these costs in this case, Defendants would be wise not to raise them again as a
disbursement in state court if that action is commenced and they prevail.
V.
Orders
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Defendants’ Bill of Costs (Docket No. 125) is
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 19, 2021
Buffalo, New York
s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
United States District Judge
9
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?