National Organization for Wome v. Joseph Scheidler, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8110

This protracted RICO-related action between NOW (plaintiffs) and Scheidler et al. began ~1986, reached the Supreme Court three times, and concluded with defendants prevailing.
After final judgment (May 14, 2007) defendants moved for costs under 28 U.S.C. §1920; timing and procedure for the bill of costs became disputed.
Defendants filed a bill of costs (July 14, 2007) after a Rule 59 motion suspended finality; Judge Coar accepted the filing, and defendants complied with N.D. Ill. Local Rule 54.3.
Judge Coar left the bill of costs under advisement for years, retired, and the matter was later called to the court’s attention under Local Rule 78.5; Judge Norgle awarded most requested costs (~$63,391.45).
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing (1) defendants’ cost requests were untimely, (2) defendants failed to show transcripts and copies were “necessarily obtained,” and (3) defendants forfeited relief by not pressing Judge Coar before his retirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of bill of costs	Bill was filed late and post-judgment timing bars recovery	Rule 59 tolled finality; filing was timely or otherwise accepted by judge	Filing was timely: Rule 59 tolled finality and Coar later accepted the filing; local follow-up was timely
Sufficiency of proof that costs were “necessarily obtained” under §1920	Defendants must show document-by-document necessity for transcripts and copies	§1924 affidavit verifying costs as necessarily incurred is sufficient; court applies a reasonableness/prudence standard	§1924 statutory affidavit suffices; “necessary” means reasonably and prudently obtained at the time, not a document-by-document hindsight inquiry
Effect of lengthy judicial delay and judge retirement	Defendants forfeited right to a ruling by not alerting Judge Coar before retirement	No rule requires litigants to nag judges; Local Rule 78.5 is permissive and both sides were equally aware/passive	Delay and retirement do not forfeit defendants’ rights; parties need not repeatedly press judges for rulings
Scope of appellate review and clerk procedures	Plaintiffs point to docketing irregularities and argue prejudice	Defendants relied on available procedures and local rules; clerk/administrative errors do not extinguish the claim	Judicial delay or docketing quirks do not defeat a legally sufficient costs claim; appellate review is deferential

National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994) (prior Supreme Court decision in the same litigation)
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (2003) (subsequent Supreme Court decision in the same litigation)
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 547 U.S. 9 (2006) (later Supreme Court decision resolving issues in the same litigation)
Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates L.P., 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (provides standard for equitable relief and excusable delay in filing)
Majeske v. Chicago, 218 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2000) (interpreting §1920 reasonableness standard for taxable costs)
Hudson v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 758 F.2d 1237 (7th Cir. 1985) (addressing recoverable costs and necessity standard)
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819) (illustration of the elastic meaning of “necessary” in legal contexts)
In re Plunkett, 82 F.3d 738 (7th Cir. 1996) (distinguished; concerns filing delay, not silence while matters are under advisement)
Zelazny v. Lyng, 853 F.2d 540 (7th Cir. 1988) (distinguished; involves timeliness of filings rather than post-advisement inaction)

AFFIRMED