Norris v. Kohler Co

E.D. Arkansas

Norris v. Kohler Co

DecidedSeptember 13, 2021

Docket4:18-cv-00337

StatusUnknown

This text of Norris v. Kohler Co (Norris v. Kohler Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norris v. Kohler Co, (E.D. Ark. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

GLENN NORRIS PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:18-cv-00337-KGB

KOHLER CO. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court is a motion for award of costs filed by defendant Kohler Co. (“Kohler”) (Dkt. No. 51). The time for filing a response to the motion has passed, and plaintiff Glenn Norris has not responded. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion (Dkt. No. 51). Mr. Norris filed a complaint against Kohler, his former employer, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (Dkt. No. 1). Kohler filed a motion for summary judgment properly supported by numerous exhibits, including but not limited to deposition excerpts (Dkt. No. 23). After reviewing the parties’ summary judgment filings, the Court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and that Kohler was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on Mr. Norris’s discrimination and retaliation claims. Accordingly, the Court granted Kohler’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 23; 49; 50). Kohler was the prevailing party in this case, and Kohler files its motion for costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Kohler in its motion for bill of costs seeks $1,729.48 related to fees for printed transcripts necessarily obtained and used in this case to prepare its dispositive motion (Dkt. No. 51, at 1). The Court has reviewed the invoices submitted by Kohler in support of this request. The expense of depositions “reasonably necessary to [a] case and. . . not purely investigative in nature” may be taxed as costs. Koppinger v. Cullen—Schiltz and Associates, 513 F.2d 901, 911 (8th Cir. 1975). For good cause shown, the Court grants Kohler’s motion for costs and awards costs in the amount of $1,729.48 to Kohler (Dkt. No. 51). It is so ordered this 13th day of September, 2021.

Hu sh A . Palir— Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

GLENN NORRIS PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:18-cv-00337-KGB

KOHLER CO. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court is a motion for award of costs filed by defendant Kohler Co. (“Kohler”) (Dkt. No. 51). The time for filing a response to the motion has passed, and plaintiff Glenn Norris has not responded. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion (Dkt. No. 51). Mr. Norris filed a complaint against Kohler, his former employer, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (Dkt. No. 1). Kohler filed a motion for summary judgment properly supported by numerous exhibits, including but not limited to deposition excerpts (Dkt. No. 23). After reviewing the parties’ summary judgment filings, the Court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and that Kohler was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on Mr. Norris’s discrimination and retaliation claims. Accordingly, the Court granted Kohler’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 23; 49; 50). Kohler was the prevailing party in this case, and Kohler files its motion for costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Kohler in its motion for bill of costs seeks $1,729.48 related to fees for printed transcripts necessarily obtained and used in this case to prepare its dispositive motion (Dkt. No. 51, at 1). The Court has reviewed the invoices submitted by Kohler in support of this request. The expense of depositions “reasonably necessary to [a] case and. . . not purely investigative in nature” may be taxed as costs. Koppinger v. Cullen—Schiltz and Associates, 513 F.2d 901, 911 (8th Cir. 1975). For good cause shown, the Court grants Kohler’s motion for costs and awards costs in the amount of $1,729.48 to Kohler (Dkt. No. 51). It is so ordered this 13th day of September, 2021.

Hu sh A . Palir— Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Norris v. Kohler Co, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-kohler-co-ared-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack