Radol v. Thomas

113 F.R.D. 172, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16301
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedDecember 18, 1986
DocketNo. C-1-82-0013
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 113 F.R.D. 172 (Radol v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Radol v. Thomas, 113 F.R.D. 172, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16301 (S.D. Ohio 1986).

Opinion

ORDER

CARL B. RUBIN, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for review of the Clerk of Court’s January 21, 1986, Amended Order Taxing Costs (doc. 289.)

Defendants prevailed in this corporate takeover action and a jury of the United States District Court entered judgment on June 30, 1983. (doc. 258). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court on December 9, 1985 (doc. 283.)

Defendants filed their Bills of Costs (docs. 279 and 280) on October 15, 1985, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). A costs hearing was held before Deputy Clerk Daniel J. Lyons, Jr. on January 8, 1986, at which all parties were represented by counsel and objections were noted by Mr. Lyons.

The clerk taxed as costs $138,924.42 owed to defendant United States Steel (hereinafter “U.S. Steel”), and $51,406.94 owed to defendant Marathon Oil Company (hereinafter “Marathon”). (Doc. 288, pp. 3, 5). Thereafter, plaintiffs moved for review of the Amended Order Taxing Costs.

I. SIXTH CIRCUIT GUIDELINES

Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holds that Rule 54(d) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs, but allows denial of costs at the discretion of the trial court. White & White v. American Hospital Supply Corp., 786 F.2d 728, 730 (6th Cir. March 25, 1986). The Court in White & White upheld a total denial of costs to prevailing defendants in an antitrust action.

The appellate court also noted that the District Court should consider only the necessity, not the reasonableness, of the prevailing party’s costs. Id. at 732.

II. ISSUES

The Court now considers the issues raised by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, in view of the Sixth Circuit guidelines developed in the recent White & White decision, supra; in view of the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (hereinafter “Local Rules”); and in view of the Office of the Clerk’s Guideline for Attorneys Regarding Taxation of Court Costs in the Southern District of Ohio (hereinafter “Guidelines.”)

1. Timeliness

The Court holds that defendants’ cost bills were timely filed. It would be inefficient and impractical to require the prevailing party at the trial court level to file a cost bill before a court of appeals has a chance to decide the appeal. Fed.R. Civ.P. 54(d) allows costs to be taxed by the prevailing party. But the prevailing party could change, once the case is before the appellate court, and that change would invalidate any Bill of Costs filed after entry of the District Court judgment.

Local Rule 5.8 provides that the Bill of Costs is to be filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment. This rule did not apply to defendants because the rule was not in [174]*174effect when this Court’s judgment was entered. Once the appellate court’s mandate was entered, defendants complied with the rule.

Hereafter, Local Rule 5.8 should be considered stayed and the Clerk should delay taxing costs until the time for an appeal has expired or until judgment is entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. After judgment is entered by the appellate court, the prevailing party has thirty days to file the Bill of Costs.

However, in accordance with the Guidelines, p. 1, an exception to delaying taxing costs is made whenever a prevailing party requests that the clerk tax costs, so the amount of costs can be determined prior to issuance of process in aid of execution of judgment.

2. Daily transcripts

The clerk allowed $10,018.50 for defendant Marathon and $6,595 for defendant U.S. Steel. (Doc. 288, pp. 3, 5).

The Court holds that defendants should be compensated for a total of two copies of the daily transcript at the daily rate, rather than for four copies, as the clerk allowed. Each defendant will be taxed for one copy apiece.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holds that costs of a daily transcript can be denied where the transcript is “helpful but not necessary for defense of the case.” White & White, 786 F.2d at 731. Such are the circumstances in the case at bar. Although defendants likely found four daily transcripts helpful, such costs were not necessary for defense of the case and are not taxable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1920(2). Id. at 730.

Defendant contends fewer daily transcripts would have been inconvenient and impracticable, considering the number of defendants plaintiffs chose to sue. (Doc. 290, p. 5). However, the White & White case compels the Court to address only the necessity, not the reasonableness, of defendants’ costs. Id. at 732.

When costs are unnecessary, as were the costs here, the District Court can exercise its discretion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) to deny those costs. Id. at 731.

Upon review of the defendants’ exhibits to their cost bills, the Court added the total cost for two daily copies and divided that total in half. The Court finds that each defendant should be compensated $3,287.50 for daily transcripts. Marathon is denied costs for a daily transcript of a preliminary injunction hearing, because defendant did not prevail in that hearing.

3. Fees for Witnesses

The clerk allowed $1,542.60 for defendant Marathon, and $90,034.35 for Defendant U.S. Steel. (Doc. 288, p. 3, 5).

The Court’s decision in Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum v. City of Cincinnati, No. 1-82-128 (S.D. Ohio, January 8, 1985) controls as to costs allowed for defendant U.S. Steel’s expert witness, Dr. Robert Hamada. The costs for Marathon’s witnesses, $1542.60, were agreed upon by the parties.

In Cincinnati Riverfront the Court held that a winning party may only recover a reasonable fee for his testimony in court together with a reasonable per diem for days of actual testimony. Id.

However, defendant U.S. Steel claims costs for all the fees charged by Dr. Hamada, a total of $90,034.35, most of which were for pretrial preparation.1

Defendant U.S. Steel asserts that in “in view of the complexity of the issues addressed by Dr. Hamada and the scope of [175]

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

Related

Harris v. Camp Taylor Fire Protection District
303 S.W.3d 479 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2009)
Kohus v. Cosco, Inc.
282 F.3d 1355 (Federal Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 F.R.D. 172, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radol-v-thomas-ohsd-1986.