Free Bill of Costs - Response to Objection - 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 27 28

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP Collier Center 201 East Washington Street Suite 1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382 Telephone: (602) 257-5200 Facsimile: (602) 257-5299 Karl M. Tilleman (013435) P. Bruce Converse (005868) Jason Sanders (018600) Attorneys for Defendants Harlem Globetrotters International, Inc. and Mannie L. and Catherine Jackson DREIER LLP 499 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 328-6100 Ira S. Sacks, admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Defendant GTFM, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Meadowlark Lemon, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Harlem Globetrotters International, Inc., et al. Defendants.
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO BILL OF COSTS FOR DEFENDANT GTFM, LLC

Nos. CV-04-0299 PHX DGC and CV-04-1023 PHX DGC

Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC

Document 629

Filed 03/23/2007

Page 1 of 6
Doc. #525549

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

1.

GTFM' Bill of Costs is Timely. S GTFM' bill of costs is timely because the partial summary judgment ruling in s

its favor was not a " final judgment" that triggered the time to file a bill of costs. Bills of costs must be filed " within ten (10) days after entry of final judgment."L. R. Civ. P. 54.1(a) (emphasis added). Entry of partial summary judgment is not final judgment.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, committee'note to 1946 amendment to 56(d) (" s Subdivision (d) of Rule 56 indicates clearly, however, that a partial summary ` judgment' not a final is judgment" (emphasis added). See also Cheng v. C.I.R., 878 F.2d 306, 309 (9th Cir. ) 1989) (" is axiomatic that orders granting partial summary judgment, because they do It not dispose of all claims, are not final appealable orders" ). As in this case, where there are multiple claims and multiple parties and some of the claims are disposed of on summary judgment, the Court " may direct the entry of final judgment . . . only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Court in this case never made an express determination with Rule 54(b) language that there was " just reason for delay." Nor did the Court ever direct " no entry of judgment"on the claims disposed of on summary judgment. See Aleut Tribe v.

U.S., 702 F.2d 1015, 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (pursuant to Rule 54(b), the trial judge must make an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and an express direction for the entry of judgment). Therefore, until entry of final judgment on

February 12, 2007, there was no final judgment entered in this matter to commence the time for filing a bill of costs. Because GTFM Prevailed on Almost All of Plaintiff' Claims, GTFM is s Entitled to a Portion of its Costs. It is undisputed that GTFM is the prevailing party on five of the six claims that plaintiff alleged in this case, including plaintiff' claim for punitive damages. (Dkt. # s 76, 425, 587, 596) Plaintiff erroneously claims that because a jury verdict on one claim was entered in his favor, the verdict forecloses the possibility that GTFM was the
Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 629 1 Filed 03/23/2007 Page 2 of 6
Doc. #525549

23 2. 24 25 26 27 28

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 27 28

prevailing party with regard to all the other claims he brought. That is simply not the law. In situations where the allegedly prevailing party was only partially successful, courts apportion costs among the parties or reduce the size of the prevailing party' s award to reflect that " partial" success. Barber v. T.D. Williamson, Inc., 254 F.3d 1223, 1234 (10th Cir. 2001) (" cases in which the prevailing party has been only partially in successful, some courts have chosen to apportion costs among the parties or to reduce the size of the prevailing party' award to reflect the partial success" Other courts s ). have concluded that where each party is partially successful costs should be denied altogether. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1996) (" the event of a In mixed judgment, however, it is within the discretion of a district court to require each party to bear its own costs" Compro-Frink Co. v. Valk Mfg. Co., 595 F. Supp. 302, ); 304 (D.C. Pa. 1982) (" Because there is no way that costs could be fairly allocated on the basis of prevailing issues, rather than as to prevailing parties, neither party should be entitled to costs" Thomas v. SS Santa Mercedes, 572 F.2d 1331, 1335-36 (9th Cir. ); 1978) (affirming trial court' decision to deny costs to either party where entitlement s unclear) (cited by plaintiff); Testa v. Village of Mundelein, Illinois, 89 F.3d 443, 447 (7th Cir. 1996) (affirming trial court' exercise of discretion to deny costs to both s parties) (cited by plaintiff). In this case, all six claims, including punitive damages, were actively litigated through depositions and written discovery. All six claims, including punitive damages, were heavily briefed on summary judgment and GTFM won summary judgment with regard to five of the six claims. To say that the costs associated with the five claims on which GTFM prevailed should be disregarded ignores that plaintiff' prosecution of s those claims increased the costs associated with this litigation exponentially and led to many of the costs GTFM now seeks to recover. GFTM has been extraordinarily reasonable in seeking only half of its taxable costs considering the fact that GTFM

Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC

Document 629 2 Filed 03/23/2007

Page 3 of 6
Doc. #525549

1 2

prevailed on almost all of plaintiff' claims, including the punitive damages claim.1 s (DKt. 587, 596) GTFM'Request for Costs is Reasonable. s Plaintiff claims that GTFM'award of its taxable costs should be reduced to 1/7 s of its taxable costs because plaintiff was only one of seven plaintiffs in this case and he should only be held responsible for 1/7 of GTFM' taxable costs. Plaintiff overlooks s the fact that in preparing its bill of costs, GTFM already eliminated all of the costs associated with all of the depositions of witnesses not related to GTFM' defenses s against plaintiff. (See GTFM' Bill of Costs) Specifically, GTFM did not seek any s costs associated with the deposition transcripts of former plaintiffs Marques Haynes, Dallas Thornton, Larry Rivers, Robert Hall, James Sanders, or Fred Neal. Nor did GTFM seek any costs associated with the deposition transcripts of witnesses Oliver Phipps or Peter Gallo (even though Phipps ended up testifying live at trial on behalf of plaintiff and Gallo testified via his videotaped deposition). transcript costs alone total an additional $3,552.32. GTFM also reasonably requests the recovery of witness fees for GTFM trial witnesses Bruce Weisfeld, Daymond Aurum, and Larry Blenden. Each of these These unrequested

3 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

witnesses testified at the trial and would have done so even if the other six plaintiffs had never been parties to this lawsuit. (Id., Ex. B) Conclusion Based on the foregoing, GTFM respectfully requests an award of its taxable costs in the amount of $5,818.48.

27 28

GTFM' request for its taxable costs is not duplicative of the other Defendants' s request because HGI and Mr. Jackson were separate defendants, were represented by separate counsel at trial, and independently incurred their own, separate costs.
Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 629 3 Filed 03/23/2007 Page 4 of 6
Doc. #525549

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 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 629 4 Filed 03/23/2007 Page 5 of 6
Doc. #525549

DATED this 23rd day of March 2007. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP By: /s/ P. Bruce Converse Karl M. Tilleman P. Bruce Converse Jason Sanders 201 East Washington Street Suite 1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Harlem Globetrotters International, Inc., Mannie L. Jackson, and Catherine Jackson and DREIR LLP

By:

/s/ Ira S. Sacks with permission Ira S. Sacks 499 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant GTFM, LLC

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 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1. I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of March 2007, a true and

correct copy of the foregoing Motion was electronically transmitted to the Clerk' s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Safia A. Anand: [email protected] Florence M. Bruemmer: [email protected] Edward R. Garvey: [email protected], Christa O. Westerberg: [email protected] [email protected] Robert Williams Goldwater III: [email protected] Ray Kendall Harris: [email protected] [email protected] Joel Louis Herz: [email protected], [email protected] Alec R. Hillbo: [email protected] [email protected] Brandon Scott Peters: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Anders V. Rosenquist , Jr: [email protected] Ira S. Sacks: [email protected] Clay M. Townsend: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Jason R. Leonard: [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]

By: /s/ P. Bruce Converse P. Bruce Converse

Document 629 5 Filed 03/23/2007

Page 6 of 6
Doc. #525549