Zarco v. VWR International, LLC
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-00089-HSG
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Zarco v. VWR International, Judge Gilliam ordered briefing on whether Defendants should receive costs under Rule 54(d).
Emmanuel Zarco and the Defendants, including VWR International, LLC, were required to submit supplemental briefs concerning whether Defendants should receive costs.
What happened
In Zarco v. VWR International, LLC, Emmanuel Zarco asked the court to strike Defendants’ memorandum of costs. Defendants opposed the request, and Zarco replied.
The court directed both sides to file simultaneous supplemental briefs by November 2, 2021. Each brief could be no longer than four pages and had to address whether the court should use its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) to deny costs to Defendants.
The court required the parties to discuss five factors, including the case’s public importance, the difficulty of the issues, possible effects on future cases, Zarco’s financial resources, and the parties’ economic disparity. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. did not decide the costs issue in this order; he stated that the matter would be submitted after the briefs were filed.
The detailed version
- Zarco v. VWR International, LLC · No. 4:20-cv-00089-HSG
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 26, 2021
Background
On June 7, 2021, Emmanuel Zarco filed a motion to strike Defendants’ memorandum of costs. Defendants opposed the motion, and Zarco filed a reply.
Order
The court directed the parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefs by November 2, 2021. The briefs could be no more than four pages and had to address whether the court should exercise its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) to deny costs to Defendants.
The court required the parties to address at least the five factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.: (1) the case’s substantial public importance; (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues; (3) the potential chilling effect on similar future actions; (4) the plaintiff’s limited financial resources; and (5) the economic disparity between the parties. The parties could also submit declarations or other relevant evidence, including proof of income.
The court instructed the parties not to repeat arguments from their earlier filings. No further responsive briefs were permitted, and the matter would be submitted on November 2 after the simultaneous briefs were filed. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. did not resolve the motion to strike or decide whether Defendants would receive costs in this order; the order directed supplemental briefing on that question.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.