Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC.

Background

Inline Packaging, LLC sued Graphic Packaging International, Inc., alleging antitrust violations, tortious interference, and misappropriation of trade secrets. On September 5, 2018, the court granted summary judgment for Graphic on all claims, and judgment was entered the next day. Inline appealed.

Graphic then filed a bill of costs seeking $304,930.89. Inline objected to the bill and moved to stay, or pause, the calculation and taxation of costs until its appeal was resolved. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation advising that the motion be denied. The magistrate judge also stated that the motion was a post-judgment matter outside his usual delegated authority, but addressed it to conserve the parties’ and court’s resources.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the motion de novo, meaning it considered the disputed issues independently rather than deferring to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court explained that this review was appropriate because Inline had improperly scheduled and noticed the post-judgment motion before the magistrate judge.

The court rejected Inline’s argument that the District of Minnesota generally stays cost proceedings during an appeal. It relied on the district’s amended Local Rule 54.3, recent decisions recognizing that costs may be awarded while an appeal is pending, and the court’s recent denial of a similar stay request.

The court also considered factors relevant to a stay. It found that judicial economy favored reviewing the bill of costs while the complex litigation was still fresh. Inline had not made a strong showing that it would succeed on appeal because it asserted that its appeal raised substantial factual and legal questions without explaining why it was likely to prevail. Inline also had not shown irreparable harm: its claim that immediate payment could make it insolvent and force it out of business was speculative, particularly because the final amount of taxable costs was not yet known. The court found that the public interest likewise favored resolving the remaining cost issues without delay.

Finally, the court rejected Inline’s proposed $150,000 bond. The court explained that the usual requirement is a bond covering the full amount of the judgment plus interest, costs, and damages for delay, and that Inline had not shown a reason to depart from that requirement. The proposed bond was less than half of Graphic’s claimed costs, and Inline’s proposed amount depended on its unilateral estimate of which costs would be recoverable.

Disposition

Judge Montgomery overruled Inline’s objection, adopted the report and recommendation, and denied Inline’s Motion to Stay Calculation or Taxation of Costs. The order did not decide the amount of costs ultimately taxable.

Classification Basis

This is a procedural order because it concerns an ancillary, post-judgment request to pause cost proceedings rather than the merits of the underlying claims.