United States District Court, N.D. New York
ROBERT W. CARLISLE, Plaintiff,
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 687, an Affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Defendants.
LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC, SHELLY A. LEONARD, ESQ. STEVEN
BENNETT BLAU, ESQ. Counsel for Plaintiff.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN P.C. Counsel for Defendant United
Parcel Serv., Inc., JEREMY M. BROWN, YAEL SPIEWAK, ESQ.
LAW FIRM, PLLC Counsel for Defendant Teamsters Local 687 MIMI
C. SATTER, ESQ.
DECISION AND ORDER
T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge.
for Defendant Teamsters Local 687 217 S. Salina St., 6th Fl.
Syracuse, NY 13202 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States
District Judge DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this Labor Management
Relations Act ("LMRA") action filed by Robert W.
Carlisle (“Plaintiff”) against United Parcel
Service, Inc., and Teamsters Local 687
(“Defendants”), are Defendants' motions for a
bill of costs. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 37.) For the reasons set forth
below, each of Defendants' motions is granted in part and
denied in part.
Relevant Procedural History
October 31, 2016, Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.
(“Defendant UPS”) filed a motion for summary
judgment. (Dkt. No. 23.) In that motion, Defendant UPS
expressly relied on, in part, transcripts of the depositions
of Plaintiff, Brian Hammond and Kirk Perry, as well as copies
of papers used during the depositions. (Id.)
October 31, 2016, Defendant Teamsters Local 687
(“Defendant Teamsters”) filed a motion for
summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 20.) In that motion, Defendant
Teamsters expressly relied on, in part, transcripts of the
depositions of Joelle Sebastian-Dean, Robert Milne, Brian
Hammond and Kirk Perry. (Id.)
August 29, 2017, the Court issued a Decision and Order
granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment. (Dkt.
No. 33.) In that Decision and Order, the Court relied on, in
part, the above-described deposition transcripts.
Parties' Briefing on Defendants' Motions
Parties' Briefing on Defendant UPS's Motion for a
Bill of Costs
in its motion for a bill of costs, Defendant UPS seeks
recovery of $3, 617.81 in costs that it necessary incurred
for documents used in the case (i.e., $3, 056.00 for
deposition transcripts and exhibits thereto, and $561.61 for
the copying of exhibits otherwise used in the depositions).
(Dkt. No. 35.) More specifically, the $3, 056.00 in
deposition transcripts are broken down as follows: (a)
$738.50 for the 211-page transcript of the first day of the
deposition of Plaintiff (i.e., on June 14, 2016) at a cost of
$3.50 per page; (b) $28.60 for 44 pages of transcript
exhibits for the first day of the deposition of Plaintiff at
a cost of $0.65 per page; (c) $1, 138.35 apparently for both
the 230-page transcript of the second day of the deposition
of Plaintiff (i.e., on June 22, 2016) at a cost of $3.50 per
page, and an unspecified number of pages of exhibits thereto
at a cost of $0.65 per page; (d) $940.55 apparently for both
the 210-page transcript of the deposition of Brian Hammond at
a cost of $3.50 per page, and an unspecified number of pages
of exhibits thereto at a cost of $0.65 per page; and (e)
$210.00 for the 60-page transcript of the deposition of Kirk
Perry at a cost of $3.50 per page. (Dkt. No. 35, Attach. 1.)
The $561.61 in copying costs is broken down as follows: (a)
five copies of 422 pages of exhibits that were used in, and
thus became official exhibits to, the depositions (one copy
for each of the three deponents, one copy to Plaintiff's
counsel and one copy to the Union's counsel), amounting
to 2, 110 copies; (b) 1, 457 of those copies made through a
copying service at $.05 per copy (plus assembly, handling fee
and sales tax), totaling $398.36; and (c) the remaining 653
of the copies made in-house at a cost of $0.25 per page,
totaling $163.25. (Id.)
in his objections, Plaintiff asserts five arguments: (1)
Defendant UPS violated Local Rule 54.1 by failing to file a
copy of a canceled check (or other proof the invoices were in
fact paid); (2) Defendant UPS also failed to show that the
referenced transcripts were necessarily obtained for use in
the case, because it did not note (in its application) the
title of the motion, the date it was filed, and where in the
motion the transcript was used; (3) Defendant UPS also did
not (in its application) clearly show the total number of
pages of the transcripts, the per-page rate and the total
cost, in violation of the Court's Guidelines for Bills of
Costs; (4) Defendant UPS also seeks recovery for the
non-recoverable costs of rough drafts, linked exhibits, and
electronic delivery and handling with regard to the
transcript of the first day of Plaintiff's deposition;
and (5) Defendant UPS failed to ...