Summary
denying defendants' bill of costs filed one day late
Summary of this case from Casanova v. Marathon Corp.Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-0479 (RBW).
June 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Currently before the Court is a Bill of Costs by defendants Tina S. Alster, M.D. and the Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery, Chartered ("Bill of Costs") [D.E. # 93] filed on October 6, 2004. For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' Bill of Costs will be denied.
I. Background
The plaintiff, Susan Wild, filed suit against the defendants, Tina S. Alster and the Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery, for medical malpractice. Trial commenced on September 7, 2004, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants on September 15, 2004. As the prevailing parties, the defendants filed a Bill of Costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and Local Rule 54.1. The defendants seek the following taxable costs: depositions necessary to prepare for trial; fees for witnesses who testified at trial; costs for photocopying and photograph enlargements used at trial; and miscellaneous copying for use at trial. Bill of Costs at 2-5.
The plaintiff challenges the defendants' Bill of Costs as untimely and also objects to all of the defendants' deposition costs and most of the defendants' photocopy costs. See Plaintiff's Opposition to Bill of Costs at 1-2 ("Pl.'s Opp'n"). However, the plaintiff does not challenge the lone $40 witness fee sought by the defendants. Id. at 3.
II. Legal Analysis
The plaintiff first challenges generally the defendants' Bill of Costs on the ground that it is untimely. Pl.'s Opp'n at 1-2. In fact, the defendants' Bill of Costs was untimely, being filed one day after the time period required by the Local Rules. Local Rule 54.1 states that "[a] bill of costs must be filed within 20 days after entry of judgment terminating the case as to the party seeking costs, unless time is extended by the Court." LCvR 54.1(a). Judgment here was entered for the defendant on September 15, 2004, see Judgment on the Verdict, and no requests for extensions have been granted by the Court. Therefore, calculating twenty days from the entry of judgment, the defendants' Bill of Costs should have been filed by October 5, 2004, but instead it was filed on October 6, 2004. Bill of Costs at 6.
A district court may accept a late filing "upon motion" and a showing of "excusable neglect" pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 6(b). See Yesudian v. Howard Univ., 270 F.3d 969, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has designated four factors for determining when a late filing may constitute "excusable neglect." These factors include: "(1) the danger of prejudice to the [opposing party], (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." In re Vitamins Antitrust Class Action, 327 F.3d 1207, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993). And, "the question of whether attorney error may constitute 'excusable neglect' is within the discretion of the district court." Id. In deciding what constitutes "excusable neglect," the Circuit Court has noted it will give "great deference [to] district courts in what are effectively their 'case management decisions.'" Yesudian, 270 F.3d at 971.
While the length of the delay caused by the defendants' late filing was minor, and it does not appear that prejudice resulted, the Court is left with no explanation from the defendants for their tardiness because they failed to file a reply to the plaintiff's opposition. It has been said that "fault in the delay [is] perhaps the most important factor," when determining whether a party's late filing can be labeled "excusable neglect." Wilson v. Prudential Fin., 218 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2003) (citingWebster v. Pacestter, Inc., 270 F. Supp. 9, 14-15 (D.D.C. 2003)). Without any explanation from the defendants on this point, the Court has no ability to assess the cause for the late filing and its reasonableness. Consequently, the Court is unable to find that the defendants' late filing was due to "excusable neglect."
III. Conclusion
Because the defendants' Bill of Costs was filed after the period allowed by Local Rule 54.1, the Court denies the defendant's Bill of Costs in its entirety.