Opinion
2:02cv1424
02-22-2013
RONALD SHAVER, WILLIAM J. WHITNEY, JOE FEDELE, RALPH RIBERICH and ANTHONY P. KANZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SIEMENS CORPORATION, and SIEMENS WESTINGHOUSE RETIREMENT PLAN FOR UNION EMPLOYEES, and SIEMENS WESTINGHOUSE RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendants.
Electronic Filing
Judge David S. Cercone
MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2012, upon due consideration of plaintiffs' motion to reduce the costs taxed by the Clerk of Court on May 1st 2012, IT IS ORDERED that the motion be, and the same hereby is, denied.
First, plaintiffs have waived any right to seek review of the Clerk's taxing of costs. On April 16, 2012, the Clerk mailed a bill of cost to counsel notifying plaintiffs they had 14 days to file objections thereto. The letter informed plaintiffs: "Failure to file any objections will be deemed to have consented to the Bill of Cost." Plaintiffs failed to present the Clerk with any objections. Accordingly, plaintiff consented to the Bill of Cost and have waived the opportunity to dispute the amount taxed.
Second, assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiffs have not waived the opportunity to dispute the amount taxed, the cost of the depositions reasonably were necessary to the presentation of defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Altman v. Bobcat Co., CIV.A. 05-956, 2008 WL 2890707, *3 (W.D. Pa. July 23, 2008) (costs can include depositions that were reasonably necessary at the time of taking); Fitchett v. Stroehmann Bakeries, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1168, *9 (E.D. Pa. February 1, 1996) ("depositions used in support of a motion for summary judgment are necessarily obtained in a case."). The record reflects that the depositions were utilized in the presentation and resolution of defendants' motion. See e.g. Doc. No.s 80, 82 & 85.
______________________
David S. Cercone
United States District Judge
cc: All counsel of record
(Via CM/ECF Electronic Filing