United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the undersigned is the Report and Recommendation
("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Julie
S. Sneed. (Doe. 118). By the R&R, Judge Sneed recommends
that Defendant Costco Wholesale Corp.'s
("Costco") Motion to Tax Costs,
(Doc. 117), be granted in part and denied without prejudice
in part, (Doc. 118). Costco objects in part. (Doc. 119).
Plaintiff Antonia Sanchez Robles failed to file written
objections to the R&R or respond to Costco's
the Federal Magistrates Act ("Act"), Congress
vested Article III judges with the power to "designate a
magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter
pending before the court," subject to various
exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Act further
vests magistrate judges with authority to submit proposed
findings of fact and recommendations for disposition by an
Article III judge. Id. § 636(b)(1)(B).
"Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of
a magistrate judge's report and recommendation], any
party may serve and file written objections to [the
magistrate judge's] proposed findings and
recommendations." Id. § 636(b)(1). On
review, the district judge "shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report... to
which objection is made." Id. When no timely
and specific objections are filed, caselaw indicates the
district judge should review the magistrate judge's
proposed findings and recommendations using a clearly
erroneous standard. See Gropp v. United Airlines,
Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993)
(Kovachevich, J.). The district judge "may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The district judge "may also receive
further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions." Id.
R&R, Judge Sneed recommends granting Costco's request
to recover the $400.00 filing fee Costco paid in removing the
action to this Court. (Doc. 118 at 3-4). Judge Sneed
recommends denying Costco's remaining requests for:
1. $799.33 in printing and photocopying costs;
2. $1, 337.25 in transcript costs; and
3. $26, 444.69 in costs for expert witness fees.
Id. Regarding Costco's requests for printing,
photocopying, and transcript costs, Judge Sneed recommends
the denial be without prejudice to Costco's right to
present argument or evidence regarding the necessity of such
costs. Id. at 3 (citing United States E.E.O.C.
v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 623 (11th Cir. 2000);
Watson v. Lake Cty., 492 Fed.Appx. 991, 996 (11th
Cir. 2012)). Regarding Costco's request for expert
witness fees, Judge Sneed recommends the denial be without
prejudice to Costco's right to seek the statutory per
diem fees authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b).
Id. at 4 (citing Kivi v. Nationwide Mut. Ins.
Co., 695 F.2d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 1983)).
filed its objections to the R&R on December 3, 2019.
(Doc. 119). By the objections, Costco presents argument
regarding the necessity of its printing and photocopying
costs. Costco contends:
[P]hotocopies and printing costs in the present case include
the use of exhibits that were relied upon by the defense and
submitted to the jury. Said exhibits consisted of but were
not limited to medical records, medical images and other
pertinent documents that were relied upon at trial for the
presentation of [Costco's] case, chiefly its defense
against the Plaintiffs allegations. Said items were used,
presented to the Court and submitted into, evidence and
therefore, all constitute items necessarily obtained for use
in this case. Without question, the absence or nonexistence
of said printed and photocopied materials would have
substantially impaired the ability for [Costco] to present
its case to the jury and therefore this Court should find
said costs were necessarily obtained for use in this case.
Id. at 3. Upon consideration, the undersigned finds
Costco's argument sufficient to establish the printing
and photocopying costs were necessarily incurred for use in
the case. See W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d at 623. The
Costs are therefore recoverable. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920(3)-(4). The undersigned ...