Opinion
Case No. 00-1168-KI.
June 21, 2004
Craig A. Crispin, Shelley D. Russell, Crispin Employment Lawyers, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Robert D. Newell, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Volm's Motion for Recovery of Costs on Appeal (#278). Volm seeks $1,627.50 in costs for the court reporter's transcripts.
DISCUSSION
Defendants object to an award of costs because they contend that Volm's motion is untimely. The following events took place.
On March 22, 2004, the Ninth Circuit filed a Memorandum affirming the judgment in Volm's favor entered in this court after the jury trial. On April 8, Volm filed a Satisfaction of Judgment. On April 13, the Ninth Circuit entered a Judgment, which also acts as the mandate, affirming this court. This court filed that Judgment/Mandate on April 16. On May 7, the Ninth Circuit filed an Order, which also served to amend its mandate, granting Volm's motion to submit an untimely bill of costs and awarding Volm costs for reproduction of her appellate briefs. The Order also stated, "Counsel is reminded that costs for the reporter's transcript must be taxed in the District Court." On June 1, Volm filed the motion before me to recover the cost of the transcript.
All dates occurred in 2004.
Appellate Rule 39 provides that costs for several items, including the reporter's transcript, are taxable in the district court. Fed.R.App.P. 39(e)(2). It also states that a party who wants costs taxed must file a bill of costs with the circuit clerk within fourteen days after entry of judgment. Because the appellate rule does not state a filing date at the district court, I must rely on this court's local rule which states that a bill of costs must be filed no later than fourteen days after "entry of judgment, or receipt and docketing of the appellate court's mandate." LR 54.1(a)(1)(A). Thus, Volm's bill of costs had to be filed in this court within fourteen days of April 16, namely by April 30. Volm is over a month late on her filing in this court. Even if I calculate her filing time from the date of the Order/Amended Mandate filed on May 7, she is still untimely. Consequently, I deny her request for costs.
CONCLUSION
Volm's Motion for Recovery of Costs on Appeal (#278) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.