KLEIMAN
v.
WRIGHT

S.D. Fla. | 2022-03-30
No. 18-cv-80176
District Court, S.D. Florida (2022)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations, granting in part and denying in part the parties' motions for costs.


Facts & Procedural History

The parties filed motions for taxation of costs, which were referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendations, …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Defendant Dr. Craig Wright’s Motion for Bill of Costs, ECF No. , and Plaintiff W & K Info Defense Research’s Motion for Entry of Taxable Costs, ECF No. 1 (“Motions”). The Motions were previously referred to the Honorable Bruce E. Reinhart for a Report and Recommendations (“R&R”). See ECF No. .

On March 14, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a R&R recommending that the Motions be granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. . The R&R advised the parties to file any objections within fourteen days of the date of service of a copy of the R&R. Id. To date, the parties have not filed objections, nor have the parties sought additional time in which to do so.

Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the record in this case and is otherwise fully advised. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F. 3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds the R&R to be well reasoned and

correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes that the Motions must be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth therein.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The R&R, ECF No. , is ADOPTED.

2. Defendant Dr. Craig Wright’s Motion for Bill of Costs, ECF No. , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant Craig Wright is entitled to recovery of $1,170 in process server fees, $97,627.95 for transcripts, $4,167.54 in witness fees, and $180.57 in copying costs for a total of $103,146.06 in taxable costs 3. Plaintiff W&K Info Defense Research, LLC’s Motion for Entry of Taxable Costs, ECF No. , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff W&K Info Defense Research, LLC is entitled to recovery of $585.00 in process server fees, $97,671.24 for transcripts, and $120.00 in witness fees for a total of $98,376.24 in taxable costs. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on March 30, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Footnotes
1 Plaintiff W & K Info Defense Research LLC’s Response to Defendant Craig Wright’s Motion is at ECF No. and Defendant Craig Wright’s Reply is at ECF No. . Defendant Craig Wright’s Response to Plaintiff W&K Info Defense Research, LLC’s Motion is at ECF No. and Plaintiff W&K Info Defense Research, LLC’s Reply is at ECF No. . Case No. 18-cv-80176-BLOOM/Reinhart

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw