Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

Background

The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 to require four objectors—Daniel Concepcion, Sidney Duprey Conde, Aldemar Burgos, and Anthony Garcia—to post an appeal bond. An appeal bond is security intended to ensure payment of allowable appeal costs. The plaintiffs initially requested a $472,000 bond and later sought an additional $14,000 for deposition transcripts, estimating that each objector's transcripts would cost approximately $3,500.

The court decided the motion without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for June 30, 2023.

Whether a Bond Was Required

Rule 7 permits a district court to require an appellant to provide security in an amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal. The court considered the objectors' ability to post a bond, the risk that they would not pay costs if they lost, and the likelihood that they would lose the appeal and become responsible for costs.

The court found that a bond was warranted. Although the objectors asserted that they could not afford one, they provided no evidence of their financial inability to post a bond. The court also found a significant risk of nonpayment because the objectors resided outside California and did not state that they would pay appeal costs if they lost. Finally, relying on reasons stated in its March 29, 2023 order approving the class-action settlement and overruling objections by the Marti plaintiffs, the court found a significant likelihood that the objectors would lose their appeal.

Amount of the Bond

The court concluded that the bond should include $10,000 for costs identified in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e), including specified record, transcript, bond, and filing costs. Although the court considered $10,000 to be on the high side, it found the amount reasonable in light of the length of the litigation, the size of the record, the possibility of additional appellate motions, and the objectors' failure to challenge the estimate.

The court also included $14,000 for deposition transcripts. It found that the plaintiffs had provided evidence of those costs and that deposition-copy fees are allowable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

The court excluded increased settlement-administration expenses resulting from delay caused by the appeal. It concluded that those expenses were better characterized as delay damages rather than appeal costs because no rule or statute required an unsuccessful appellant to pay them as costs. The court stated that the plaintiffs might be able to seek those expenses from the Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1912, but that issue was for the Court of Appeals to decide.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion. It ordered the four objectors to jointly post a $24,000 bond under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 no later than July 14, 2023.