Free Bill of Costs - Obj/Ans/Resp - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Wayne Gill, Esq. (Fla Bar. No. 114953) WALTON LANTAFF SCHROEDER & CARSON LLP 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, 7th Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Telephone: (561) 689-6700 Facsimile: (561) 689-2647 Steven Plitt, Esq. (State Bar No. 007481) Daniel Maldonado, Esq. (State Bar No. 018483) KUNZ PLITT HYLAND DEMLONG & KLEIFIELD, A Professional Corporation 3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1092 Telephone: (602) 331-4600 Facsimile: (602) 331-8600 Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA U-Haul International, Inc.; U-Haul Company Of Pennsylvania; U-Haul Company Of Florida; and Republic Western Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, vs. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Defendants. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY No. CIV 04-0662 PHX DGC (Maricopa County Superior Court Cause No. CV 2004-002438) DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' BILL OF COSTS (Assigned to the Honorable David G. Campbell)

COMPANY ("LMC"), pursuant to Local Rule 54.1(e) objects to the following cost items contained in plaintiffs' bill of costs.

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 185

Filed 04/17/2007

Page 1 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1.

It objects to plaintiffs' request for $80.00 for fees of the clerk relating to

pro hac vice admissions. These expenses are not taxable because they do not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1914. Eagle Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 982 F.Supp. 1456, 1460 (M.D. Ala. 1997). Therefore, this cost item should be denied in its entirety. 2. It objects to plaintiffs' request for $144.42 for trial transcript. This cost

item is for a copy of the trial transcript, since the original of the trial transcript was ordered by defendant's counsel. Said cost item is not permitted by Local Rule

54.1(e)(2) which states: "Copies of transcripts for counsel's own use are not taxable in the absence of a special order of the court." The court has not issued any such special order. Therefore, this cost item should be denied in its entirety. 3. Defendant objects to plaintiffs' request for $746.88 for "Document

production to defendant." This cost item is not permitted by Local Rule 54.1(e)(5) which states: "The cost of copies submitted in lieu of originals because of the

convenience of offering counsel or his client are not taxable." Therefore, this cost item should be denied in its entirety. 4. Defendant objects to plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of $236.82 for

"Copy defendant's motion papers and exhibits." Local Rule 54.1(e)(5) states that "The reasonable cost of copies of papers necessarily obtained from third party records custodians is taxable." This cost item should nevertheless be denied in its entirety because, since plaintiffs' cost bill does not disclose the number of pages upon which this copy charge is based, plaintiffs have not provided the documentation and/or information

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 185 -2

Filed 04/17/2007

Page 2 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

that is needed in order to determine whether the requested amount is reasonable as required by Local Rule 54.1(e)(5). 5. Defendant objects to that part of the requested reimbursement for Thomas

Matush's deposition that is described as a $25.00 charge for "MIN-U-SCRIPT/WORD INDEX & ASCHII." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). 6. Defendant objects to that part of the requested reimbursement for Douglas

Bell's deposition that is described as a $25.00 charge for "MIN-U-SCRIPT/WORD INDEX & ASCHII." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). Defendant also objects to the part of the requested reimbursement for Mr. Bell's deposition that is described as a $375.95 "expedited" charge for the deposition. This part of this cost item should be disallowed in its entirety because Local Rule 54.1(e)(3) makes no provision for an expedited charge, and because plaintiffs have made no showing as to what a nonexpedited charge for the deposition copy would have been. Therefore, the total amount of reimbursement requested for Mr. Bell's deposition ($400.95) should be disallowed. 7. Defendant objects to that part of the requested reimbursement for Michael

Mizrachi deposition that is described as a $25.00 charge for "MIN-U-SCRIPT/WORD INDEX & ASCHII." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). Defendant also objects to the part of the requested reimbursement for Mr. Mizrachi's deposition that is

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 185 -3

Filed 04/17/2007

Page 3 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

described as a $536.55 "expedited" charge for the deposition. This part of this cost item should be disallowed in its entirety because Local Rule 54.1(e)(3) makes no provision for an expedited charge, and because plaintiffs have made no showing as to what a nonexpedited charge for the deposition copy would have been. Therefore, the total amount of reimbursement requested for Mr. Mizrachi's deposition ($561.55) should be disallowed. 8. Defendant objects to that part of the requested reimbursement for Mae

Sandoval's deposition that is described as a $25.00 charge for "MIN-U-SCRIPT/WORD INDEX & ASCHII." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). Defendant also objects to the part of the requested reimbursement for Ms. Sandoval's deposition that is described as a $456.25 "expedited" charge for the deposition. This part of this cost item should be disallowed in its entirety because Local Rule 54.1(e)(3) makes no provision for an expedited charge, and because plaintiffs have made no showing as to what a nonexpedited charge for the deposition copy would have been. Therefore, the total amount of reimbursement requested for Ms. Sandoval's deposition ($481.25) should be disallowed. 9. Defendant objects to that part of the requested reimbursement for Thomas

Foley's deposition that is described as a $25.00 charge for "MIN-U-SCRIPT/WORD INDEX & ASCHII." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). Defendant also objects

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 185 -4

Filed 04/17/2007

Page 4 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

to the part of the requested reimbursement for Mr. Foley's deposition that is described as a $55.00 charge for "DELIVERY/HANDLING." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). 10. Defendant objects to that part of the requested reimbursement for Dr. John

J. O'Connell's deposition that is described as a $15.00 charge for "MIN-USCRIPT/WORD INDEX & ASCHII." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). Defendant also objects to the part of the requested reimbursement for Dr. O'Connell's deposition that is described as a $25.00 charge for "DELIVERY/HANDLING." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). Defendant further objects to the part of the requested reimbursement for Dr. O'Connell's deposition that is described as a $25.00 charge for "ETRAN." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). 11. Defendant objects to that part of the requested reimbursement for Ronald

K. McCarty's deposition that is described as a $25.00 charge for "MIN-USCRIPT/WORD INDEX & ASCHII." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). Defendant also objects to the part of the requested reimbursement for Mr. McCarty's deposition that is described as a $25.00 charge for "DELIVERY/HANDLING." This

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 185 -5

Filed 04/17/2007

Page 5 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). 12. Defendant objects to that part of the requested reimbursement for Michael

H. Hickson's deposition that is described as a $15.00 charge for "MIN-USCRIPT/WORD INDEX & ASCHII." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). Defendant also objects to the part of the requested reimbursement for Mr. Hickson's deposition that is described as a $30.00 charge for "DELIVERY/HANDLING." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). 13. Defendant objects to that part of the requested reimbursement for Richard

Michael Amoroso's and Holly Lyn Thorkildson-Reed's depositions that is described as a $50.00 charge for "MIN-U-SCRIPT/WORD INDEX & ASCHII." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). Defendant also objects to the part of the requested

reimbursement for Mr. Amoroso's and Ms. Reed's depositions that is described as a $40.00 charge for "DELIVERY/HANDLING." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). 14. Defendant objects to that part of the requested reimbursement for James

A. Robertson's deposition that is described as a $15.00 charge for "MIN-U-

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 185 -6

Filed 04/17/2007

Page 6 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

SCRIPT/WORD INDEX & ASCHII." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it is not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). Defendant also objects to the part of the requested reimbursement for Mr. Robertson's deposition that is described as a $25.00 charge for "DELIVERY/HANDLING." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). Defendant further objects to the part of the requested reimbursement for Mr. Robertson's deposition that is described as a $25.00 charge for "ETRAN." This part of this cost item should be disallowed as it not one of the permissible deposition costs listed in Local Rule 54.1(e)(3). WHEREFORE, defendant/counter-plaintiff, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, respectfully requests that the clerk, pursuant to each of defendant/counterplaintiff's aforesaid objections, deduct $3,071.87 from plaintiffs' bill of costs and thereby limit the total of any award of taxable costs to no more than $6,143.62.

... ...

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 185 -7

Filed 04/17/2007

Page 7 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DATED this17th day of April, 2007. WALTON LANTAFF SCHROEDER & CARSON LLP Wayne T. Gill, Esq. Southtrust Center 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., #700 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 KUNZ PLITT HYLAND DEMLONG KLEIFIELD Steven Plitt, Esq. Daniel Maldonado, Esq. 3838 N. Central Ave., Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1902 By: w/Daniel Maldonado Daniel Maldonado, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Filed electronically this 17th day of April, 2007 and copies electronically served/mailed to: Gerald Gaffaney, Esq. David J. Ouimette, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander, P.A. 2901 North Central, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel: 602/285-5000 Fax: 602/285-5100 Bruce Friedman, Esq. Mark S. Fragner, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP 292 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 185 -8

Filed 04/17/2007

Page 8 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Tel: 212/953-2381 Fax: 212/953-2462 s/___Daniel Maldonado______
8E4B.368 #991

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 185 -9

Filed 04/17/2007

Page 9 of 9