Free Proposed Bill of Costs - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01263-REB-KLM

Document 313

Filed 02/25/2008

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-cv-01263-REB-KLM ROBERT M. FRIEDLAND, Plaintiff, v. TIC ­ THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY and GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS INC., f/k/a GEOSERVICES, INC. Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO BILL OF COSTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY

Plaintiff Robert Friedland, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby submits his objection to the Bill of Costs submitted on behalf of TIC ­ The Industrial Company ("TIC"). TIC's Bill of Costs seeks to tax costs far beyond those properly allowed by Rule 54 (d) and 28 U.S.C. 1924. As explained in more detail below, TIC has included in their Bill of Costs costs for discovery and investigative materials that were not before the Court in the context of the dispositive motion that terminated the litigation. Such costs are inappropriate and should not be taxed against Robert Friedland in this matter. ARGUMENT "The phrase `for use in the case' refers to materials actually prepared for use in presenting evidence to the court." United International Holdings, Inc. v. the Wharf (Holdings) Limited, 174 F.R.D. 479, 484 (D. Colo. 1997). Materials collected in discovery or pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) are considered "investigative materials" and are not eligible to be taxed as costs.

Case 1:04-cv-01263-REB-KLM

Document 313

Filed 02/25/2008

Page 2 of 4

James v. Coors Brewing Co., 73 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1260 (D. Colo. 1999). Similarly, "[d]epositions taken solely for discovery purposes are not taxable." Id. at 1261. "[I]t is reasonable to tax only those depositions submitted in connection with the dispositive motion that terminated the litigation." Wyne v. Medo Industries, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 584, 589 (D. Md. N.D. 2004). In the present case none of the depositions for which defendant seeks to recover costs was presented to the court in the context of the motion for summary judgment that terminated the litigation. Similarly, none of the documents for which defendant seeks to recover the costs of copying or exemplification was presented to the court in the context of the motion for summary judgment that terminated the litigation. Accordingly, none of these depositions or documents was "necessarily obtained for use in the case" pursuant to Rule 54(d) as that phrase has been defined by the judges of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The only materials attached to the relevant motion for summary judgment were discovery responses prepared and submitted on behalf of Robert Friedland in this case. "There is no authority for the recovery of costs related to the copying of `pleadings' and motions." United International Holdings, Inc. v. the Wharf (Holdings) Limited, 174 F.R.D. 479, 484 (D. Colo. 1997). Therefore, in light of the foregoing authority, Robert Friedland respectfully requests the Bill of Costs submitted by defendant be rejected and that defendant take nothing in costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).

-2-

Case 1:04-cv-01263-REB-KLM

Document 313

Filed 02/25/2008

Page 3 of 4

DATED this 25th day of February, 2008.

s/ Perry L. Glantz John D. Fognani, Esq. Perry L. Glantz, Esq. Fritz W. Ganz, Esq. Fognani & Faught, PLLC 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2222 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: 303-382-6200 Fax: 303-382-6210 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff

-3-

Case 1:04-cv-01263-REB-KLM

Document 313

Filed 02/25/2008

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 25th day of February, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO BILL OF COSTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY was electronically filed via ECF with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and served electronically or via first-class U.S. mail on the following: Terrence M. Ridley, Esq. [email protected] [email protected] Marian Lee Carlson, Esq. [email protected] [email protected] Colin C. Deihl, Esq. [email protected] [email protected] Paul J. Sanner, Esq. [email protected] Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy, LLP 333 Market Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105-2122

s/ C.S. Vega