Ossmann v. Meredith Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia
DecidedMarch 31, 2023
Docket1:19-cv-03200
StatusUnknown

This text of Ossmann v. Meredith Corporation (Ossmann v. Meredith Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ossmann v. Meredith Corporation, (N.D. Ga. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

PAUL OSSMANN, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. 1:19-cv-03200-SDG MEREDITH CORPORATION, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Taxing of Costs or Alternatively, to Retax Costs and Stay Collection Pending Appeal [ECF 105]. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. I. Procedural History On March 31, 2022, the Court modified and adopted the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins III, granted Defendant Meredith Corporation’s motion for summary judgment, and directed that judgment be entered against Plaintiff Paul Ossmann.1 On April 7, Defendant filed its Bill of Costs for $8,561.26.2 On April 26, the Clerk of Court taxed costs in

1 ECF 95. 2 ECF 98. that amount against Ossmann.3 On April 27, Ossmann filed a notice of appeal and, on May 3, moved to vacate the taxing of costs.4 II. Discussion Ossmann’s motion asks that the Court vacate entirely the costs taxed against

him because he is “destitute.”5 Alternatively, Ossmann requests that the Court retax the costs because Meredith sought reimbursement for expenses to which it is not entitled and stay any execution on the retaxed costs until after his appeal has been resolved.6 Ossmann’s appeal has been fully briefed and oral argument was

held on March 23, 2023.7 A. Ability to Pay Under Rule 54, there is a presumption that costs should be awarded to the prevailing party, but the Court has the discretion to decide otherwise. Chapman v.

AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1038 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 351 (1981)). The costs that may be taxed are identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc.,

3 ECF 99. 4 ECF 105. 5 ECF 108, at 1. 6 See generally ECF 105. 7 Ossmann v. Meredith Corp., Case No. 22-11462 (11th Cir.), Dkt. 47. 482 U.S. 437, 441–42 (1987), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in EEOC v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 620 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Section 1920 enumerates expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority found in Rule 54(d).”). Although the Court has the discretion not to award the full amount

of taxable costs, that discretion is not unlimited because the denial of costs “is in the nature of a penalty” against the prevailing party. Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc., 557 F.2d 521, 526 (5th Cir. 1977)). The

non-prevailing party’s financial status is one factor the Court may consider in making its cost award. Id. This requires the non-prevailing party to provide “substantial documentation of a true inability to pay.” Id. The Court may not consider the relative wealth of the prevailing and non-prevailing party. Id. Nor

may the Court refuse to award any costs at all. Id. Ossmann asserts that he is 65 years old and has been unemployed since he was terminated by Meredith in April 2018.8 However, he collects $2,400 a month

in social security benefits and also receives Medicaid benefits and food stamps.9 He argues that his “dire financial status” justifies the costs awarded to Meredith

8 ECF 105, at 3. 9 Id. being vacated in toto.10 In support, Ossmann provided a financial affidavit that purports to show he has no assets, significant debt, and monthly expenses.11 He provided a separate declaration that further asserts he has “exhausted his 401(k), been living on food stamps, had to enroll in Medicaid, and mowed lawns to earn

money.”12 Ossmann is married, but he has provided no evidence of his access to marital assets nor indicated whether he has retirement accounts outside of his 401(k).13 Further, Ossmann is represented by counsel. He has not stated whether

he has paid attorneys’ fees, which would obviously bear on his ability to pay taxed costs. And, as Meredith points out, Ossmann paid the appellate filing fee.14 The Court does not have the authority to vacate the award of costs in its entirety. Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1039. Moreover, Ossmann has not provided

“substantial documentation of [his] true inability to pay.” Id. There is not sufficient evidence for the Court even to assess by what amount (if any) the cost award could appropriately be reduced to account for Ossmann’s claimed penury. Gilchrist v.

10 Id. 11 ECF 105, at 9. 12 ECF 108, at 1; ECF 108-1, ¶¶ 3–5. 13 See generally ECF 105, at 9; ECF 108-1. 14 ECF 106, at 3–4; see generally Docket, Ossmann v. Meredith Corp., Case No. 22- 11462 (11th Cir.). Bolger, 733 F.2d 1551, 1557 (11th Cir. 1984) (indicating that the losing party bears the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of taxing costs for the prevailing party). To the extent Ossmann seeks relief on this basis, it is DENIED. B. Necessary Expenses

Under Section 1920, costs may be awarded for (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title. 28 U.S.C. § 1920. At issue here are costs incurred with two depositions and three subpoenas. 1. Depositions Ossmann takes issue with certain costs incurred by Meredith in connection with two depositions—Ossmann’s own and that of Laurel Berenguer—arguing that these costs were not “necessarily obtained for use in the case.”15 For his own deposition, Ossmann asserts that $126.80 for expert video/technician testimony, expedite charges of $849.56, and rough draft charges of $554.75 should not be taxed. For Berenguer’s deposition, Ossmann claims that a 2-day rush charge of

$3547.40 should be excluded. Meredith counters that it was required to expedite the production of the transcripts from these depositions in light of the looming discovery deadline, because Ossmann refused to comply with his own discovery

obligations, and in order to support its motion to compel and for sanctions.16 i. Ossmann’s Deposition The magistrate judge set the close of discovery for March 15, 2021.17 As that judge noted in a January 19, 2021 Order, up to that point, Ossmann had “done

little to prosecute the case.”18 The magistrate judge also detailed Ossmann’s delays in producing documents and providing proper responses to interrogatories, and cautioned that continued failures to comply with discovery obligations could

15 ECF 105, at 4–5. 16 ECF 106, at 5. 17 ECF 37. 18 ECF 45, at 1. See also ECF 57, at 2.

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

Related

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August
450 U.S. 346 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.
482 U.S. 437 (Supreme Court, 1987)
John D. Chapman v. Ai Transport
229 F.3d 1012 (Eleventh Circuit, 2000)
Donald P. Watson v. Lake County
492 F. App'x 991 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)
Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc.
557 F.2d 521 (Fifth Circuit, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ossmann v. Meredith Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ossmann-v-meredith-corporation-gand-2023.