Zarco v. VWR International, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 EMMANUEL ZARCO, Case No. 20-cv-00089-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 60 10 VWR INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 On June 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendants’ memorandum of costs. Dkt. 14 No. 60. Defendants, in turn, filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to strike on June 11, 2021, 15 Dkt. No. 61, to which Plaintiff replied on June 28, 2021, Dkt. No. 62. 16 The parties are DIRECTED to submit by November 2, 2021 simultaneous supplemental 17 briefs of no more than four pages addressing whether the Court should exercise its discretion to 18 deny costs to Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). The parties should 19 address, at a minimum, the five “‘good reasons’ for declining to award costs” articulated by the 20 Ninth Circuit in Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247-48 (2014): (1) the 21 substantial public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, 22 (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff's limited financial resources, and 23 (5) the economic disparity between the parties. The parties may also submit with their 24 supplemental briefing any declarations or other relevant evidence, such as proof of income. 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 The briefs must not repeat arguments made in the parties’ prior filings, and must instead 2 focus solely on the application of the factors detailed in Escriba and any other factors bearing on 3 the Court’s exercise of its discretion. No further responsive briefs are permitted, and the matter 4 will stand submitted on November 2 once the parties file their simultaneous briefs. 6 Dated: 10/26/2021

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28