Free Order on Motion for Review - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-00819-WDM-OES

Document 126

Filed 07/27/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO JUDGE WALKER D. MILLER Civil Action No. 01-cv-819-WDM-OES ROBERT DOERR, Plaintiff, v. COLORADO DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES, a Division of the State of Colorado, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTION TO REVIEW BILL OF COSTS Miller, J. This matter is before me on Plaintiff' motion to review the corrected bill of costs s issued by the Clerk of the Court o n Ju n e 2, 2004, awarding costs in the amount of $768.75 to the State Defendants. The original bill of costs, dated February 26, 2003, set forth an incorrect total of $891.75. (The Clerk reduced the costs recoverable for copies but did not amend the total requested. February 26, 2003 Bill of Costs.) On June 7, 2004, within five days of the entry of the corrected bill of costs, Plaintiff asked that I review the costs because he did not receive notice of any appearance of the parties before the Clerk to tax costs and is uncertain what costs were taxed. He also states that he did not receive information regarding the depositions covered by the bill of co s ts . The State Defendants responded, pointing out that Plaintiff' counsel did s indeed appear by telephone at the original meeting to tax costs, that the motion to review

Case 1:01-cv-00819-WDM-OES

Document 126

Filed 07/27/2005

Page 2 of 2

the costs is untimely because it was not filed within five days of the entry of the original bill, that the correction of the costs awarded was proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), and that the correction inured to Plaintiff' benefit. s Rule 60(a) permits the court to correct mistakes in the record at any time on its own initiative or on motion of a party. Although Plaintiff may not have been notified of the Clerk' correction of the cost award prior to the issuance of the June 2, 2004 bill of costs, s it is clear from the record that the Clerk was merely correcting a mathematical error in the February 26, 2003 bill, and that Plaintiff participated through counsel in the discussion of the costs covered by those bills. Accordingly, it is ordered that Plaintiff' motion to review the bill of costs, filed June s 7, 2004, is denied. DATED at Denver, Colorado, on July 26, 2005. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Walker D. Miller United States District Judge

PDF FINAL

2