Opinion
No. 95 C 3507
June 1, 2004
MEMORANDUM
This Court recently received from the Clerk of Court a just-mailed-in Bill of Costs and supporting Memorandum in this case, which was disposed of back in February 2001. Because of that extraordinary discrepancy in time (the papers, though not received by mail until May 18, 2004, bore a March 8, 2001 date), this Court had its minute clerk dredge up the original file, which was understandably in warehouse storage.
With the file now having been retrieved, it appears that the Notice of Bill of Costs and accompanying documents were in fact served on opposing counsel back in 2001, just within the 30-day time limit prescribed by this District Court's LR 54.1(a), Although the recent mailing has not been accompanied by any explanation, it seems possible (if not indeed likely) that someone in the City of Chicago Corporation Counsel's Office simply stuck the papers in the office file instead of following up on the matter properly. One thing seems certain: no effort was made to follow up on the matter for over three years.
This Court sees no reason to honor such a belated request, even though LR 54.1(a) is not jurisdictional. Attorney neglect of this kind justifies the imposition of some price, and the denial of an award of the claimed costs is a reasonable one under the circumstances. Indeed, the supporting Memorandum itself cites to Seventh Circuit caselaw confirming the broad discretion in the District Court in determining whether costs are to be awarded. Accordingly costs will not be taxed against plaintiff Felix Ichile.