Summary
holding that costs of Markman hearing and Daubert hearing transcripts were taxable as "necessary for counsel to determine whether to seek review of any adverse rulings."
Summary of this case from Crevier-Gerukos v. Eisai, Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:98-CV-2712-M.
March 4, 2002.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion Regarding Finality of Judgment, filed on January 17, 2002, and Defendants' Motion for Stay without the posting of a supersedeas bond, filed on February 11, 2002.
In regard to Plaintiff's Motion, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963, the Court finds that Harris has shown good cause for declaring the Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc, effective as of December 26, 2001, to be final for purposes of registration of the judgment in districts in which the Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Defendant possesses substantial assets. The Court concludes that Auto Wax has presented sufficient evidence that Defendants do not own substantial assets within this District, but do own such assets within the Central and Southern Districts of California and within the District of Arkansas. Thus, the Court GRANTS Harris's Motion, but restricts registration of the Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc to the Central and Southern Districts of California and the District of Arkansas.
On the subject of Defendants' Motion for Stay, the Motion is DENIED as MOOT, because Defendants filed, and the Court has approved, their supersedeas bond.
SO ORDERED.