United States Ex Rel. Long v. GSDMIdea City, L.L.C.
807 F.3d 125
5th Cir.2015Background
- Relator Johnny Ray Long sued GSD&M under the False Claims Act while a Chapter 13 debtor but failed to disclose the FCA claim in his bankruptcy.
- The district court dismissed Long’s FCA suit with prejudice on judicial-estoppel grounds for nondisclosure; this court previously affirmed that dismissal.
- After dismissal, GSD&M moved for costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), seeking $214,306.23 for transcripts, videography, copying/exemplification, printing, and witness fees.
- The district court awarded the full requested amount, finding GSD&M the prevailing party and that the costs were necessarily incurred and fell within 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
- On appeal, Long challenged (1) whether GSD&M was a prevailing party, (2) whether district court abused its discretion in awarding costs, and (3) whether specific categories of costs were taxable under § 1920.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed that GSD&M was the prevailing party but modified the award, subtracting $7,768.89 for certain non‑taxable or excessive items and reducing expert fees to the statutory maximum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GSD&M is a "prevailing party" for purposes of Rule 54(d) | Long argued the dismissal should not automatically confer prevailing-party status | GSD&M relied on precedent that dismissal with prejudice is a judgment on the merits | Held: Dismissal with prejudice makes defendant prevailing party; GSD&M is prevailing party (affirmed) |
| Whether Long's good-faith, indigence, or closeness of issues justify denying costs | Long argued his good faith, limited resources, and difficult legal issues warranted denying costs | GSD&M argued no bad faith and costs presumptively awarded to prevailing party | Held: Good faith/indigence insufficient to deny costs; no shown bad faith by GSD&M (denial not warranted) |
| Whether categories of costs (depositions, video, copying, ESI conversion) are taxable under § 1920 | Long argued many discovery and ESI-related costs are outside § 1920 or not "necessarily obtained" | GSD&M produced invoices and declarations showing necessity; relied on amended § 1920(2) and case law allowing some ESI-related copying costs | Held: Most deposition, video transcript, copying, exemplification, and certain ESI conversion/OCR costs were within § 1920 and properly awarded (district court not abused) |
| Whether specific items (expedited transcripts, shipping/tabbing/binding, excess expert fees, PACER) are taxable | Long objected that these are not authorized by § 1920 or were excessive/unnecessary | GSD&M justified urgency and incidental costs; parties agreed expert/PACER adjustments | Held: Court modified award — disallowed expedited transcript costs ($3,463.62), shipping/tabbing/binding ($429), PACER fees ($323.86), and reduced expert fees by $3,552.41 to the $802 statutory cap; total reduction $7,768.89 |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir.) (dismissal with prejudice treated as judgment on the merits for costs purposes)
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (standard deference for cost awards; prevailing-party presumption)
- Fogleman v. ARAMCO, 920 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1991) (deposition transcripts/copies taxable if necessarily obtained for use in case)
- Gagnon v. United Technisource, Inc., 607 F.3d 1036 (5th Cir. 2010) (courts may only award costs listed in § 1920 absent explicit authorization)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (rejected "catalyst theory" for prevailing-party status in that statutory context)
- Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 677 F.3d 258 (5th Cir.) (precedent undermining argument that nondisclosure penalties were unsettled law)