Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carlisle v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. New York

November 7, 2017

ROBERT W. CARLISLE, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 687, an Affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Defendants.

          BLAU 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.

          SATTER LAW FIRM, PLLC Counsel for Defendant Teamsters Local 687 MIMI C. SATTER, ESQ.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge.

         Counsel 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.

         I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

         A. Relevant Procedural History

         On 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.)

         Also on 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.)

         On 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. (Id.)

         B. Parties' Briefing on Defendants' Motions

         1. Parties' Briefing on Defendant UPS's Motion for a Bill of Costs

         Generally, 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.)

         Generally, 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.