CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Gilkison et al
Filing
1637
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER STAYING SUA SPONTE 1566 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND RULING ON 1565 BILL OF COSTS. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 9/25/2013. (copy to counsel of record via CM/ECF) (nmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:05CV202
(STAMP)
ROBERT N. PEIRCE, JR.,
LOUIS A. RAIMOND,
and RAY HARRON, M.D.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
STAYING SUA SPONTE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND RULING ON BILL OF COSTS
I.
Background
On December 20, 2012, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of
the plaintiff, CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”), finding that the
above-named defendants’ conduct violated the federal Racketeer
Influenced
and
§ 1961, et seq.
Corrupt
Organizations
Act
(“RICO”),
18
U.S.C.
Further, the jury found that Robert N. Peirce, Jr.
and Louis A. Raimond (collectively the “lawyer defendants”) were
liable to CSX for fraud, and had participated in a conspiracy to
commit fraud with defendant Ray Harron, M.D. (“Harron”). The jury,
however, did not find that CSX was liable for fraud based on its
representations made during this litigation, as was alleged in the
defendants’ counterclaims.
The jury awarded CSX $429,240.47 in
relation to the RICO violations, but did not award CSX any monetary
relief in relation to the fraud claims.
This Court then entered a
judgment in favor of CSX as to these verdicts and ordered that CSX
also recover any post-judgment interest in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 1961.
By memorandum of opinion, this judgment has been
amended to reflect the trebling of damages under RICO. See ECF No.
1635.
Thereafter, the parties filed various post-judgment motions.
At issue are CSX’s motion for attorneys’ fees and litigation
expenses and CSX’s bill of costs. First, in relation to its motion
for
attorneys’
fees
and
litigation
expenses,
CSX
seeks
$9,751,838.00 in attorneys’ fees and $923,094.00 in litigation
expenses.
In support of this motion and its submitted fees and
expenses, CSX argues that: (1) CSX obtained complete success; (2)
the case required substantial time and labor and involved novel and
complex issues; (3) the case required a high level of skill; (4)
the fees are customary for like work; and (5) there have been
similar awards in other cases.
The lawyer defendants responded by arguing that: (1) Wheeling,
West Virginia is the relevant market for determining a reasonable
hourly rate for attorneys’ fees; (2) fees and expenses related to
the counterclaims are not recoverable; (3) CSX’s staffing and
litigation spending is excessive; (4) awarding CSX a fee award of
$10.6 million based on a judgment of $95,000.00 or even $429,000.00
is unreasonable and effectively punitive; and (5) CSX cannot
recover expert and consultant fees.
stating
that
he
endorsed
and
Defendant Harron responded by
adopted
2
the
lawyer
defendants’
arguments.
CSX filed a reply wherein it contested the lawyer
defendants’ arguments in opposition to its motion for attorneys’
fees and litigation expenses.
Thereafter,
CSX
filed
a
supplement
attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
to
its
motion
In this supplement, CSX
requests an additional $268,323.00 in attorneys’ fees.
that
this
amount
reflects
the
time
for
spent
CSX states
preparing
its
fee
petition, bill of costs, motion to amend or correct judgment, and
also for its time spent responding to the defendants’ post-trial
motions.
The lawyer defendants responded by arguing that CSX has
been overstaffing, duplicating resources, and using improper outof-market rates.
The lawyer defendants also incorporate their
arguments from their initial response in opposition to the original
motion for attorneys’ fee and litigation expenses.
CSX filed a
reply contesting the lawyer defendants’ arguments in opposition.
In addition to its motion for attorneys’ fees and litigation
expenses, CSX also filed a bill of costs.
In its bill of costs,
CSX seeks $578,297.31 for various costs it incurred during the
litigation.
costs
The lawyer defendants filed objections to the bill of
and
argued
$524,199.24.
that
the
costs
be
reduced
by
at
least
In support of this reduction, the lawyer defendants
argue that: (1) CSX should not be able to recover transcriptrelated costs exceeding transcripts necessarily obtained for use in
the
case;
(2)
CSX
should
not
3
be
able
to
recover
costs
of
exemplification where the costs were incurred for convenience; (3)
CSX should not be able to recover pro hac vice fees; (4) CSX should
not be able to recover fees charged by private process servers; and
(5) CSX should not be able to recover travel and subsistence costs
sought for an expert witness.
Defendant Harron also objected and
stated that he endorsed and adopted the objections made by the
lawyer defendants.
CSX responded to the lawyer defendants’ objections by arguing
that: (1) CSX properly supported its bill of costs; (2) CSX’s
transcript-related
costs
are
properly
taxable;
(3)
CSX’s
exemplification costs are properly taxable; (4) CSX’s private
process server costs are properly taxable; and (5) CSX’s expert
travel expenses are properly taxable.
CSX, however, did agree to
withdraw its pro hac vice costs of $1,150.00.
CSX then filed a notice of supplemental authority in support
of its bill of costs.
In this notice of supplemental authority,
CSX states that at the time it filed its bill of costs, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had not yet directly
addressed whether costs for creating electronic copies of hard copy
documents by scanning were taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).
On
April 29, 2013, however, CSX indicates that the Fourth Circuit did
address this subject and found that the scanning of hard copy
documents and conversion of the files to TIFF format involved
“copying” within the meaning of § 1920(4).
4
See ECF No. 1630
(citing Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E & J Gallo
Winery, Inc., 718 F.3d 249, 261 (4th Cir. 2013)).
Therefore, CSX
argues that such costs, which it included in its bill of costs, are
proper based on this authority.
CSX also indicates that in this
same case, the Fourth Circuit held that costs for optical character
recognition are generally not taxable under § 1920. Therefore, CSX
seeks to withdraw the costs it included for optical character
recognition, which constituted $65,863.39, from its bill of costs
and supplement such costs in its motion for attorneys’ fees and
litigation expenses.
The lawyer defendants responded to the notice of supplemental
authority arguing that Country Vintner did not address the issue of
awarding costs for scanning paper documents for production.
They
argue that it was not an issue in the case and was not directly
addressed by the Fourth Circuit.
The lawyer defendants then argue
that CSX’s attempt to now include the costs for optical character
recognition in its motion for attorneys’ fees and litigation
expenses is untimely and improper.
CSX then filed a reply stating
that, while the lawyer defendants are entitled to disagree with
CSX’s
interpretation
of
the
new
case
law,
their
arguments
concerning CSX’s motives are unfounded.
For the reasons set forth below, this Court will hold CSX’s
motion for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses and CSX’s bill
of costs in abeyance and stay such motion until exhaustion of any
5
appeal in this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit or other final resolution of this civil action.
II.
Discussion
District courts possess inherent power to stay litigation
proceedings. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)
(“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control disposition of the causes on its docket
with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
litigants.”); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S.
Ct. 1636, 137 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1997) (“The District Court has broad
discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
control its own docket.”). This power may be exercised sua sponte.
Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Dept. of Energy, 102 F.R.D. 95, 98
(D. Md. 1984) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55); see Rice v.
Astrue, No. 4:06-CV-02770-GRA, 2010 WL 3607474 at *2 (D. S.C. Sept.
9, 2010) (“Although there has been no request to hold the instant
motion in abeyance, a federal court has the inherent power to stay,
sua sponte, an action before it.”).
In the interest of judicial economy, this Court finds that
holding CSX’s motion for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses
and bill of costs in abeyance pending the resolution of any appeal
of the underlying jury verdict or other resolution of this civil
action is the proper course of action at this time.
CSX is seeking
a significant award in both its motion for attorneys’ fees and
6
litigation expenses and in its bill of costs.
An examination of
all the supporting documentation that the parties provided in
relation
to
the
motion
and
bill
of
costs,
together
with
an
examination of the legal issues involved in the briefing of the
motion and bill of costs, will require a great amount of time and
an analysis of numerous factual and legal issues. If any appeal of
the jury verdict and amended judgment is successful, such time and
effort expended ruling on these matters will be a misuse of this
Court’s resources as at the very least such rulings will need
altered.
As
such,
this
Court
finds
that
CSX’s
motion
for
attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses and CSX’s bill of costs are
stayed pending the final resolution of any appeal in this matter or
other final resolution thereof.
See Reed v. Health and Human
Services, 774 F.2d 1270, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985) (holding that a
district court may defer ruling on a petition for attorneys’ fees
pending a final resolution of the merits).
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, CSX’s motion for attorneys’ fees
and litigation expenses (ECF No. 1566) and CSX’s bill of costs (ECF
No. 1565) are STAYED pending the resolution of any appeal in this
matter or other resolution of this civil action.
The parties are
DIRECTED to notify this Court of the resolution of any appeal in
this matter or any other resolution thereof.
If no such appeal is
filed within 30 days from the entry of this Court’s order denying
7
the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law or in the
alternative for a new trial or the order granting CSX’s motion to
amend the judgment to reflect statutorily-mandated trebling of RICO
damages, the parties shall advise this Court and this Court can
then consider lifting the stay and deciding CSX’s motion for
attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses and CSX’s bill of costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
DATED:
September 25, 2013
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
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?