Raynor v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. et al

Filing 138

CLERK'S ORDER Regarding Taxation of Costs: Defendant's Bill of Costs (Doc. 118 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Bill of Costs (Doc. 120 ) is GRANTED insofar as costs in the total amount of $10,810.12 are AWARDED to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Clerk's Judgment/Decree (Alternatively for a Hearing) on the Taxation of Costs (Doc. 130 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing Before the Clerk on the Taxation of Costs or in the Alternative for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 134 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Clerk, Frank G. Johns on 9/29/2021. (tms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
E. RAY RAYNOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:17cv160-FDW-DSC

CLERK’S ORDER REGARDING TAXATION OF COSTS
This closed civil case is before the Clerk on the parties’ competing Bills of Costs (Docs.
118 and 120), as well as two related pending motions, namely (i) Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of
Clerk’s Judgment/Decree (Alternatively for a Hearing) on the Taxation of Costs (Doc. 130), and
(i) Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing Before the Clerk on the Taxation of Costs or in the Alternative
for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 134). A brief review of the post-judgment procedural history of the
case is necessary to place these motions in context.
Plaintiff E. Ray Raynor initiated this case in March 2017 by filing a complaint against his
former employer, G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. (G4S), and several individual G4S employees
raising numerous claims related to his termination. Among the claims alleged in Plaintiff’s
complaint were race and age discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, and violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA). The
Court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims for race
discrimination and retaliation, as well as all of Plaintiff’s claims against the individual Defendants.
Several of Plaintiff’s remaining claims that proceeded to trial resulted in a verdict in favor of
Defendant, including his claim under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act and his claim
for wrongful discrimination based on his age in violation of North Carolina public policy. At the
1

Case 3:17-cv-00160-FDW-DSC Document 138 Filed 09/29/21 Page 1 of 4

conclusion of the five-day trial, the jury found in Plaintiff’s favor on his claim to entitlement to a
bonus and pay for vacation time, paid time off, and/or extended leave under the NCWHA. The
jury did not find Plaintiff entitled to severance pay under the NCWHA. In the end, therefore, the
jury awarded Plaintiff $6,434.80 for his bonus, $14,974.96 for his vacation time, paid time off
and/or extended leave, and $64,347.52 in punitive damages.
Following the jury’s verdict, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorney’s
Fees under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-45 on the ground that Defendant’s defenses were neither frivolous
nor malicious. (Doc. 98 at 26). The Court did, however, find that Plaintiff was entitled to
$31,808.00 in “reasonable expenses caused by the failure to disclose and reasonable expense in
making the motion for an order compelling discovery” pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) and (c)(1)(A).
Id. at 29. The Court also amended the Judgment to reflect $2,435.58 in prejudgment interest and
post-judgment interest at the federal rate. Accordingly, on June 8, 2018, the Court entered an
Amended Judgment directing that “Plaintiff shall recover from Defendant the amount of
$120,000.86, with interest accruing from January 26, 2018 until satisfied at the statutory rate
provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.” Doc. 98, p. 36. The parties filed cross appeals with the Fourth
Circuit, which subsequently affirmed the Court’s ruling in its entirety and issued its mandate on
March 19, 2020. Raynor v. G4S Secure Sols. (USA), Inc., 805 F. App’x 170 (4th Cir. 2020).
Following the direct appeal, the parties filed competing Bills of Costs, each claiming to be
the prevailing party entitled to an award of costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (Docs. 118 and
120). Plaintiff also filed a “Motion for Taxation of Costs by District Court Judge, Including
Damages for Delay Following Appeal, and/or for Excess Costs, Expenses, and Attorney’s Fees,”
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1927. (Doc 121). By Order dated July 1, 2020, the Court
concluded that Plaintiff, rather than Defendant, was the prevailing party in this matter for purposes
2

Case 3:17-cv-00160-FDW-DSC Document 138 Filed 09/29/21 Page 2 of 4

of the costs analysis and denied Plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees in its entirety. (Doc.
126).
Now before the Clerk are (i) Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Judgment/Decree
(Alternatively for a Hearing) on the Taxation of Costs (Doc. 130), and (i) Plaintiff’s Motion for
Hearing Before the Clerk on the Taxation of Costs or in the Alternative for Writ of Mandamus
(Doc. 134). Both of Plaintiff’s motions are premised on the same argument, namely that the
Court’s July 1, 2020 Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees did not resolve
Plaintiff’s request for taxable costs as set forth in his pending Bill of Costs. Defendant disagrees,
arguing that Plaintiff’s request for costs was already fully ruled on by the Court in the July 1, 2020
Order and therefore, that there is nothing further for the Clerk to resolve with respect to costs.
Although Defendant’s argument in this regard is entirely reasonable, a careful review of
the Court’s July 1, 2020 Order, as well as the parties previously filed motions and briefs concerning
Plaintiff’s requests for costs and attorney’s fees, reveals to the Clerk that the Court did not address
or resolve in its July 1, 2020 Order the $11,148.78 in taxable expenses requested in Plaintiff’s most
recently filed Bill of Costs. (Doc. 120). Thus, the Clerk will proceed to do so now.
Plaintiff, as the prevailing party for purposes of the costs analysis, has requested a total of
$11,148.78 in taxable costs, consisting of (i) $200.00 for “Fees of the Clerk,” (ii) $283.87 in “Fees
for service of summons and subpoena,” (iii) $10,622.41 in “Fees for printed or electronically
recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case,” and (iv) $42.50 in “Docket fees under
28 U.S.C. § 1923.” Plaintiff has provided itemized lists and invoices for his requested costs and,
with the exception of five transcript related costs noted in the margin below, 1 all of the requested

1

Specifically, the nontaxable charges being disallowed are as follows: (i) a $219.76 charge for a 3-day expedited
transcript (Doc. 120 at 21), (ii) a $45.00 charge for a digital transcript in addition to the original transcript (Id.), (iii)
a $30.00 charge for a condensed transcript (Id.), (iv) a $21.95 charge for shipping a transcript (Id.), and (v) a $21.95

3

Case 3:17-cv-00160-FDW-DSC Document 138 Filed 09/29/21 Page 3 of 4

costs appear to be reasonable and allowable under the applicable local and federal rules.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, and for good cause, it is hereby ORDERED that
Defendant’s Bill of Costs (Doc. 118) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs (Doc. 120) is GRANTED insofar as
costs in the total amount of $10,810.12 are AWARDED to Plaintiff and included in the Clerk’s
Judgment in this matter.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Judgment/Decree
(Alternatively for a Hearing) on the Taxation of Costs (Doc. 130) is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing Before the Clerk on the
Taxation of Costs or in the Alternative for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 134) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Any party may request review by the Court of the Clerk’s ruling by filing a motion within
seven (7) days after entry of this Order, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.1(e).

Signed: September 29, 2021

charge for shipping a video deposition. (Id. at 22). See Local Civil Rule 54.1(g) (providing that “[i]tems normally
not taxed include . . . (2) daily, expedited, real time or hourly copies of transcripts . . .; (4) Costs of shipping/mailing
trascripts, . . .; [and] (10) Costs associated with condensing a transcript, putting transcripts on a diskette, or
providing E-transcripts in addition to counsel receiving the original transcript.”

4

Case 3:17-cv-00160-FDW-DSC Document 138 Filed 09/29/21 Page 4 of 4