Opinion ID: 2314184
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Expenses and Costs

Text: Under § 1988, a prevailing party is entitled to recover not only reasonable attorneys' fees but also the reasonable costs and expenses necessarily incurred in litigating its claims. 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1988); see also Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 707 F.2d 636, 637 (1st Cir.1983) (per curiam). However, like requests for attorneys' fees, requests for costs and expenses must be properly documented. More specifically, a prevailing party must establish that they were both necessary and reasonable. Zabkowicz, 789 F.2d at 553. In this case, no such showing has been made. Instead, the plaintiffs' claim for expenses is characterized by the same utter disregard for applicable requirements as their claim for attorneys' fees. Thus, they assert that they have paid $22,510.17 for the services of three private investigators and approximately $40,000.00 in expert witness fees and expenses. However, they are unable to produce any bills or other documentation showing what services were performed, when they were rendered, how much time was involved, what rates were charged or what expenses are included in those sums. Those omissions are especially significant because none of the investigators or witnesses testified at trial, and therefore, the Court has no way to determine whether the services were necessary or whether the fees charged were reasonable. There is a similar lack of explanation or documentation with respect to more than $16,000.00 claimed for paralegal fees. In addition, some of the expenses claimed clearly appear to be extravagant. Thus, a total of nearly $15,000.00 is claimed for lodging expenses. Of that amount, $4,800.00 is identified as apartment rental for the two out-of-state attorneys who participated in the trial. That sum, itself, seems excessive inasmuch as the trial lasted for only 17 days. The remaining $10,200.00 consists of hotel bills for unidentified expert witnesses who never testified and other individuals who were identified but whose roles in the case, if any, are unknown. By the same token, more than $12,000.00 is claimed for unitemized transportation costs (air) for many of the same individuals. No bills, receipts or other documentation were provided to substantiate those amounts. Nor was there any indication as to when most of these individuals came to Rhode Island, the purposes of their visits, where they stayed or how long they stayed. Superimposed on this complete absence of documentation is the same kind of misrepresentation that permeates the plaintiffs' requests for attorneys' fees. Thus, the plaintiffs seek reimbursement for very precise amounts allegedly expended for items such as office supplies ($479.50 and $877.75), postage ($548.40), and photocopying ($10,320.00, $550.00, $3,689.23). Those figures clearly convey, and presumably were intended to convey, the impression that they were derived from detailed records or exact measurement of the quantities of each item involved. However, on cross-examination, Ms. Schiff admitted that they were only estimates and that there is no documentation to support them. (Tr. 8/18/89 at 125). Moreover, evidence was presented that Ms. Schiff and the Lodge are defendants in a state court suit seeking payment for the charter jet fees being claimed as air travel expenses in this case. In that suit the Lodge, itself, has asserted that such expenses are unrelated to this case. (Tr. 7/15/89 at 19-20; Exhibit B). In short, like their claim for attorneys' fees, the plaintiffs' claim for costs and expenses is so undocumented and riddled with misrepresentations that complete denial is warranted. See Zabkowicz v. West Bend Co., 789 F.2d 540, 549-50 (7th Cir.1986), rev'g in part 601 F.Supp. 139 (E.D.Wis.1985).