Jones et al v. Norton et al
Filing
466
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 462 Motion to Review Clerks Taxation of Costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 9/24/14 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
DEBRA JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
REVIEW CLERK’S TAXATION OF COSTS
v.
Case No. 2:09-cv-730 TC BCW
VANCE NORTON, et al.,
District Judge Tena Campbell
Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells
On August 25, 2014, this matter was referred to the undersigned by Judge Campbell
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Review
Clerk’s Taxation of Costs. 2 Plaintiffs request “that the Court review the Court Clerk’s Taxation
of Costs, entered July 29, 2014.” 3 The Clerk entered total costs for the State Defendants of
$5,431.25 and total costs for Vernal City and Uintah County Defendants of $9,526.32. 4
Plaintiffs ask the Court to exercise its discretion under Federal Rule 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920
to deny the Defendants’ separate cost bills. The Court has carefully considered relevant case law
and the record before it. After doing so, the Court declines to exercise its discretion and
DENIES Plaintiffs motion.
1
Docket no. 465.
2
Docket no. 462.
3
Mtn. p. 2, docket no. 462; see also Taxation of Costs, docket no. 461.
4
The Court notes that Plaintiffs amounts set forth in its motion are more than that awarded by the Clerk of Court.
Plaintiffs set forth an amount of $5,996.25 for the State Defendants and $11,009.32 for the Uintah County and
Vernal City Defendants. The difference in the amounts arises from the deduction of certain costs by the Clerk of
Court. This includes a deduction for some items Plaintiffs object to in their motion. For example, the Clerk of
Court deducted the costs for producing DVDs. So the Court will not address Plaintiffs arguments regarding these
deductions as they were already addressed by the Clerk of Court. The Court finds no reason to disturb the
deductions based upon its review of the Clerk of Court’s order.
On March 7, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment on Counts 1 through 10 of
Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint in favor of the State, Uintah County, and Vernal City
Defendants. Additionally the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs’ pendent tort claims
for assault and battery and wrongful death under Counts 11 and 12. 5 On this same date the Court
also denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Spoliation Sanctions against certain Defendants. 6
Judgment was entered against the Plaintiffs on June 10, 2014 7 and within two weeks each
of the Defendants filed a bill of costs. 8 Plaintiffs objected to the taxation of any costs on two
grounds: 1) on equitable grounds because of the issues of spoliation which were raised in the
litigation; and 2) the extreme hardship placed on Plaintiffs to pay the costs due to their modest
means. The Clerk of Court rejected these arguments noting that they were “more properly made
to the court upon filing a motion to review the costs taxed by the clerk.” 9 The Clerk of Court
also found the objections untimely. 10 But, the Clerk of Court erred in making the untimley
determination because Defendants were given an extension of time to file their objection. 11 The
Court finds the error harmless, however, because the Court is now addressing Plaintiffs
objections and considers them to be timely.
5
Docket no. 430.
6
Order and Memorandum Decision, docket no. 429. On June 3, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for
spoliation sanctions against Defendant Vernal City after affording Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to clarify and
supplement their arguments regarding Vernal City’s liability. See Order, docket no. 451.
7
Docket no. 453.
8
Docket no. 454, docket no. 455.
9
Taxation of Costs p. 2, docket no. 461.
10
See id. p. 1 fn. 1 (“1The objections are untimely as they were filed 29 days after the filing of the state defendants'
bill of costs and 35 days after the Uintah County and Vernal City bill of costs. DUCiv R 54-2 (b) states that
objections must be filed and served within 14 days of the filing and service of the bill of costs.”).
11
Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time, docket no. 458.
2
Plaintiffs assert the same arguments in support of their motion, to wit, 1) that Defendants
request for costs is tainted because the spoliation of evidence; and 2) Plaintiffs financial
condition justifies the denial of costs. The Court is not persuaded by either argument.
The Court already rejected Plaintiffs motion for spoliation sanctions after analyzing the
evidence and arguments set forth by Plaintiffs. So the Court rejects Plaintiffs attempt to recast
these arguments as a basis for denying costs, which if adopted would essentially result in
sanctions against Defendants.
Finally, Plaintiffs have failed to provide adequate documentation of their inability to pay.
“The non-prevailing party has the burden to overcome the presumption in favor of awarding
costs.” 12 Plaintiffs have failed to meet that burden. Therefore, based upon a lack of adequate
documentation the Court rejects Plaintiffs indigent arguments. 13
Based upon the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Review Clerk’s Taxation of Costs is
DENIED. 14
12
Treaster v. HealthSouth Corp. 505 F.Supp.2d 898, 901 (D.Kan. 2007); see also Rodriguez v. Whiting Farms, Inc.,
360 F.3d 1180, 1190 (10th Cir. 2004) (affirming the district court’s decision to award costs despite the plaintiffs
indigent status).
13
See Rodriguez v. Whiting Farms, Inc., 360 F.3d 1180, 1190 (10th Cir. 2004) (affirming the district court’s
decision to award costs despite the plaintiffs indigent status); Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1039 (11th
Cir. 2000) (“We hold that a non-prevailing party's financial status is a factor that a district court may, but need not,
consider in its award of costs pursuant to Rule 54(d). If a district court in determining the amount of costs to award
chooses to consider the non-prevailing party's financial status, it should require substantial documentation of a true
inability to pay.”); McGill v. Faulkner, 18 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 1994) (non-prevailing party offered no
documentary support, relying instead on “unsupported, self-serving statements”).
14
Docket no. 462. The Court notes that there is some evidence in the record that a third-party may be helping
finance the cost of litigation. Although the Court does not rely upon this as a basis for denying Plaintiffs motion it is
something that would need to be considered if Plaintiffs had submitted sufficient documentation concerning their
indigent status.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 24 September 2014.
Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?