Grewal v. Cuneo

Background

Preetpal Grewal, an attorney representing herself, sued her former employer, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, and several individuals at the firm. The Court had previously dismissed or resolved twelve claims, and after a bench trial on Grewal’s remaining breach-of-contract claim, entered judgment for Defendants. The Second Circuit affirmed that judgment.

After the appeal, Defendants applied for $6,639.60 in costs, including $4,411.60 for producing eight deposition transcripts and costs from the appeal. The Clerk of Court taxed costs at $0 because Defendants’ submissions did not explain specifically how the deposition transcripts had been used in discovery, pretrial motions, or trial.

Applicable rules

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally favors awarding allowable costs to the prevailing party. Federal law and the Southern District of New York’s Local Civil Rule 54.1 permit taxation of deposition-transcript costs when the transcripts were used or admitted at trial or used by the court in deciding a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion. Transcripts taken solely for discovery are not taxable under the local rule.

The prevailing party bears the initial burden of showing that the claimed costs are allowable. A court may review the Clerk’s decision and may use equitable discretion to deny costs even when they might otherwise be recoverable. The court may consider factors such as the losing party’s limited financial resources.

Parties’ arguments

Defendants initially stated that the transcripts had been used in discovery, pretrial motions, and trial, but did not identify which transcripts were used or where. In their motion challenging the Clerk’s decision, Defendants provided more specific citations to summary-judgment filings and trial testimony. They argued that the transcripts were necessarily obtained for use in the case and therefore should be recoverable.

Grewal argued that Defendants had not given the Clerk enough information to determine whether the costs were legally allowable. She also argued that, even if the costs were allowable, the Court should deny them because she said she was unemployed, had limited financial resources, and was in India caring for her seriously ill mother.

Court’s analysis

The Court agreed that Defendants’ later submissions provided more detail. It also explained that, under Second Circuit precedent, a deposition transcript is considered used in connection with summary judgment when it is filed as part of the record, even if the court’s opinion does not expressly cite or rely on it. The Court therefore stated that the additional facts might have been enough to support recovery of the costs.

The Court nevertheless exercised its discretion to leave the Clerk’s decision unchanged. It found that denying costs was especially appropriate because Defendants were a well-established law firm and lawyers at that firm, while Grewal was representing herself and asserted that she was unemployed and had limited financial resources. The Court concluded that requiring Grewal to pay the costs would be significantly more burdensome.

Disposition

The Court denied Defendants’ motion regarding the Clerk’s taxation of costs and affirmed the Clerk’s $0 determination. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail a copy of the order to Grewal.