Concord Boat Corporation Galaxie Boat Works, Inc. Sea Arrow Marine, Inc. Mariah Boats, Inc. Harris Kayot, Inc. Armada Manufacturing Company, Inc. Baha Cruisers/frp Industries, Inc. Campion Marine, Inc. Caravelle Boats, Inc. Kcs International/cruisers, Inc. Mirage Holdings, Inc. Play Time Manufacturing by Ohio Marine Distributor, Inc. Powerquest Boats, Inc., Silverton Marine Corporation Independent Boat Builders, Inc. Wtys No. 4 Inc., Doing Business as Thompson Boat Company Century Craft Industries, Ltd., Formerly Known as Vanguard Industries Avenger Manufacturing G W Invader Malibu Boats West, Inc. Weeres Industries Corporation Doral International, Inc. Albemarle Boats, Incorporated v. Brunswick Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

Citation: 309 F.3d 494Docket: 01-3580

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; October 25, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Brunswick Corporation sought an award of costs from the district court after an antitrust judgment favoring a group of boat manufacturers was overturned. Brunswick requested $2,041,743.68, which included $619,598.03 for copying expenses. The district court awarded Brunswick $913,917.80 in costs, including $371,858.65 for copies, but did not impose joint and several liability among the boat companies. On appeal, Brunswick contested the amount awarded for photocopying and how costs were allocated among the plaintiffs. The Eighth Circuit initially remanded the case for further findings.

On remand, the district court maintained its cost award and allocation method, stating that joint and several liability would unfairly impact plaintiffs who would recover less based on the expert's damage calculations. The court justified individual cost apportionment as more equitable, correlating each plaintiff’s financial responsibility to their participation in the case. The court also noted factors leading to the reduction of Brunswick's photocopy costs, such as insufficient documentation and the disproportionate impact of Brunswick's higher copying costs and legal fees, as well as its failure to reduce charges for copies related to unsuccessful pretrial work. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the district court's decision, prompting further legal scrutiny.

Brunswick alleges that the district court abused its discretion by improperly apportioning costs and significantly reducing its photocopy requests. Brunswick contends the court failed to provide a rational basis for rejecting joint and several liability and for accepting Dr. Hall's opinion as a valid rationale for cost allocation. It argues that allocating costs among the boat companies complicates collection of the awarded damages. Brunswick also challenges the substantial reduction in photocopy costs, noting inconsistency with the court's previous handling of plaintiffs' cost requests. In response, the boat companies assert that cost allocation is within the district court's discretion, which was not abused according to the court's justification.

The district court's decisions regarding cost allocation are reviewed for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion if it neglects significant relevant factors. Generally, joint and several liability for costs is the norm unless equity suggests otherwise. The court's rationale for individual cost allocation—based on varying damage claims from the boat companies—is insufficient, as different damage amounts among plaintiffs do not justify departing from the norm. All plaintiffs shared legal representation, common liability theories, and similar discovery requests, with the aim of obtaining both damages and equitable relief. There is no indication that any individual plaintiff incurred greater costs than others. Individual cost awards may only be appropriate if distinct issues create separable litigation costs. Furthermore, Dr. Hall's testimony regarding damages does not correlate to the generation of costs, and basing costs solely on expected recoveries lacks utility, as multiple factors influence a party's involvement in litigation.

Joint and several liability is favored in this case due to the inherent difficulties in collection and the potential insolvency of multiple parties, which could prevent Brunswick from recovering its full award if only individual liability were imposed. This approach aligns with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), which presumes that a prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs. While joint and several liability places risk on the defendants, they can distribute costs among themselves, and any party that pays the judgment can seek contribution from others.

Brunswick contests a forty percent reduction in its copying costs, arguing it already included a voluntary fifteen percent cut. Under 28 U.S.C. 1920, photocopy expenses necessary for the case are recoverable, and the district court has discretion in determining their necessity, provided it does not act arbitrarily. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court gives undue weight to irrelevant factors or makes clear errors in judgment.

The review indicated that the district court improperly considered Brunswick’s higher copy costs compared to the plaintiffs as justification for the reduction, failing to recognize the strong presumption favoring full recovery for prevailing parties. The burden of proving inequity in Brunswick's request lay with the losing parties, not with Brunswick, which was willing to provide additional information if necessary.

The district court reduced Brunswick's costs request based on the dismissal or abandonment of claims and damage theories prior to trial, despite the fact that none of Brunswick's counterclaims were dismissed, and only a minor aspect of its antitrust counterclaim was abandoned. The court also penalized Brunswick for having a larger legal team, although plaintiffs' counsel conceded that Brunswick had greater stakes in the litigation. Additionally, the court found Brunswick's documentation insufficient, although it was comparable to that of the plaintiffs, who received 85% of their adjusted request compared to Brunswick's 60%. Most reductions made by the district court were not challenged on appeal; however, the appellate court found that the reductions for copying costs were unsupported and concluded that only a 15% reduction was justified. As a result, Brunswick is entitled to $526,658.33 for photocopy costs, leading to a total award of $1,068,717.48 when combined with undisputed costs previously granted. The appellate court reversed the district court's costs judgment and remanded the case for the entry of an order awarding costs in favor of Brunswick to be assessed against the plaintiffs jointly and severally. The record indicated discrepancies in the reported figures for Brunswick's photocopying costs, with the final affirmed amount reflecting the request outlined in Brunswick's supplemental affidavit.