Winns v. DeJoy
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:21-cv-04264
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Winns v. DeJoy, Judge Demarchi denied Winns’s late motion to vacate deposition costs taxed after USPS won summary judgment.
The ruling affects Harris L. Winns and the U.S. Postal Service by leaving the Clerk’s taxation of Winns’s deposition costs undisturbed.
What happened
In Winns v. DeJoy, Harris Winns represented himself in an employment discrimination and retaliation case against Louis DeJoy, the Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service. The court had earlier granted DeJoy’s summary-judgment motion, and Winns’s appeal was pending.
The Postal Service timely submitted a bill for Winns’s deposition costs, and the Clerk later taxed those costs. Winns asked the court to vacate them, but he did not object by the deadline or explain his later filing.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied Winns’s motion as untimely. The ruling leaves the Clerk’s taxation of the deposition costs undisturbed.
The detailed version
- Winns v. DeJoy · No. 5:21-cv-04264
- Virginia Demarchi
- June 20, 2023
Background
Harris L. Winns, who represented himself, sued Louis DeJoy in his capacity as Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). Winns alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. On October 31, 2022, the court granted DeJoy’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment. Winns’s appeal of that judgment was pending when the court decided this motion.
On November 8, 2022, DeJoy timely filed a bill of costs for Winns’s deposition. The Clerk of Court taxed those costs on March 13, 2023. Winns then moved to vacate the costs.
Reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally creates a presumption that the prevailing party will receive allowable costs, while giving the district court discretion to refuse them.
The court held that Winns’s motion was untimely. The USPS filed its bill of costs within 14 days after judgment, as required by the court’s local rules. Winns received electronic notice of the bill on the filing date. Any objections to specific costs were due by November 22, 2022, but the court received no objection by that deadline.
After the objection period, the Clerk taxed the costs on March 13, 2023. Under the federal rule, a motion asking the court to review the Clerk’s action had to be served within the next seven days. Winns filed his motion nearly two months late, did not ask permission to file late, and did not provide an excuse for the delay.
Disposition
The court denied Winns’s motion to vacate costs as untimely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.