IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WILLIAM A. GRAHAM COMPANY 

d/b/a THE GRAHAM COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THOMAS P. HAUGHEY and 

USI MIDATLANTIC, INC., 

 Defendants. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-612 

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF COSTS

Defendants USI MidAtlantic, Inc. and Thomas P. Haughey (collectively “Defendants”) object to the Bill of Costs filed by Graham. In its Bill of Costs, Graham requests that the 

Clerk tax $337,262.45 and $17,327 in costs for fees, transcripts, and copying documents. A Bill 

of Costs, submitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, must include sufficient information to determine 

whether the costs are “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Montgomery County v. Microvote Corp., 2004 WL 1087196, at *5 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 2004). A number of these costs are not 

set forth with sufficient specificity to enable the Clerk’s Office to evaluate the reasonableness or 

purpose of such costs. Accordingly, Graham’s request should be denied or reduced by the 

amounts described herein. 

In support of its objections, Defendants state as follows: 

1. On October 12, 2006 and June 13, 2011, Graham filed a Bill of Costs requesting that the Clerk’s Office tax costs against Defendants totaling $337,262.45 and $17,327, 

respectively. 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 304 Filed 06/24/11 Page 1 of 4
-2- 

2. The October 12, 2006 Bill of Costs requests $129,948.50 paid for printing. 

3. The October 12, 2006 Bill of Costs requests $158,581.51 paid for exemplification and copying of documents. 

4. Graham’s request for $129,948.50 in fees for printing should be denied or 

greatly reduced. See Ex. C-D to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs (Dkt. 154). Graham’s requested printing costs are supported by invoices that do not provide any information as to what was printed. 

See Ex. C to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs (Dkt. 154) (providing total and number of pages printed 

with no description of what was printed); see also Ex. D to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs (Dkt. 154) 

(providing total without any itemization – invoices do not include a description, the number of 

pages printed, or the price per page of the printing). Nor do they ever seek to distinguish between those costs that are really “necessary” and those that were incurred for counsel’s convenience. Association of Minority Contractors & Suppliers v. Halliday Prop., Inc., 1999 WL 

551903, at *4 (E.D. Pa. June 24, 1999). These costs should not be taxed against Defendants. 

5. Graham’s request for $158,581.51 in fees for exemplification and copying 

of documents should be denied or greatly reduced. Copying expenses are recoverable as taxable 

costs when they are “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Yudenko v. Guarinni, 2010 WL 

2490679, at *1-*2 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2010). Graham’s requested exemplification and copying 

costs are supported by invoices that do not provide any information as to what was copied or any 

basis for evaluating whether the copying was “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” See Ex. 

D & F to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs (Dkt. 154) (listing total cost without providing a description, 

the number of pages copied, or a price per page). Many do not even include the number of pages 

copied or the price per page. See e.g., Ex. F to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs (Dkt. 154). These costs 

should not be taxed against Defendants. Morgan-Mapp v. George W. Hill Correctional Facility, 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 304 Filed 06/24/11 Page 2 of 4
-3- 

2009 WL 1035141, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2009) (disallowing costs for copying where the prevailing party submitted listings which identified the date on which copies were made and the cost 

of the copies without providing a description of the material copied); see also Montgomery 

County, 2004 WL 1087196, at *5 (reducing taxable fees for copying costs by fifty percent where 

the prevailing party did not provide a description of the documents that were copied); Elliott, 

Reihner, Siedzikoski, & Egan, Inc. v. Richter, 2000 WL 427377, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 2000) 

(same)). 

6. Graham’s request for $670 to cover expedited delivery of subpoenas must 

be denied. See Ex. A to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs (Dkt. 154). No information is provided as to the 

need for expedited deliver or to determine if these costs were solely for the convenience of 

cousel. Montgomery County, 2004 WL 1087196, at *5 (disallowing costs for expedited preparation because the fees “were solely for the convenience of counsel and, therefore,” should not be 

taxed to the prevailing party.). 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 304 Filed 06/24/11 Page 3 of 4
-4- 

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs be disallowed or 

greatly reduced. 

Dated: June 24, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Floyd Abrams_______________

Floyd Abrams (pro hac vice) 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP

80 Pine Street 

New York, NY 10005 

(212) 701-3000 

Thomas E. Zemaitis (I.D. No. 23367) 

PEPPER HAMILTON LLP

3000 Two Logan Square 

Eighteenth and Arch Streets 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 

(215) 981-4000 

Attorneys for Defendants Thomas P. Haughey 

and USI MidAtlantic, Inc. 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 304 Filed 06/24/11 Page 4 of 4