Chain v. Land-Air Express of New England, Ltd.

Background

The plaintiffs—Victor J. Chain, Jr., Peter Hayward, Gilbert Lewis, Anthony L. Platoni, and Owen Taylor—brought claims against North East Freightways, Inc., LAX, LLC, and Land-Air Express of New England, Ltd. They sought damages for alleged violations of the federal and New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Acts. After a four-day remote bench trial, the court found that the plaintiffs had not established that the Acts were triggered and that North East Freightways and LAX were not liable as successors to Land-Air. Judgment was entered for the defendants.

After judgment, North East Freightways and LAX, collectively referred to as “NEF,” moved for $5,082.72 in costs for TrialGraphix’s remote-trial hosting services. The Clerk rejected NEF’s separate bill of costs for failing to comply with the court’s local rule. The plaintiffs also appealed the judgment, and the appeal was held in abeyance.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 generally allows costs, other than attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party. But recoverable costs are limited to the categories listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. One listed category is fees for “exemplification,” which courts in the Second Circuit may interpret to include certain audio-visual aids, charts, models, and other demonstrative materials used to help the fact-finder understand evidence. The court’s local rule also addresses costs for audio-visual aids.

Parties’ arguments

NEF argued that TrialGraphix’s services were a multimedia presentation that aided the fact-finder and therefore qualified as a recoverable audio-visual aid. The plaintiffs argued that the motion was premature while their appeal was pending and that TrialGraphix merely managed and hosted the Zoom proceeding and provided technical support. They also argued that the parties, not TrialGraphix, displayed exhibits through Zoom’s screen-sharing function.

Court’s analysis

The court reached the merits of the cost request despite the pending appeal because it concluded that NEF was not entitled to the requested costs. The court found that TrialGraphix had acted as a “Remote Coordinator”: it managed the Zoom trial and provided technical support. The court rejected NEF’s representation that TrialGraphix displayed trial exhibits, finding that the parties themselves displayed their exhibits.

The court held that even a broad interpretation of the local rule did not cover remote trial hosting. Recoverable audio-visual costs generally involve demonstrative materials that function like exhibits or help the fact-finder focus on important documents, concepts, or complex evidence. TrialGraphix’s hosting service did not perform that function. Instead, it ensured that Zoom—the channel through which information reached the fact-finder—worked properly. The court compared the service to on-site trial support, which is not taxable, and concluded that it was not a fee for “exemplification” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

Disposition

The court denied NEF’s motion with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion. The ruling addressed only NEF’s request for TrialGraphix’s remote-trial hosting costs.