PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay Execution and Enforcement of Money Judgment Pending Determination of Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 Motion [Docket No. 351] and Defendants' Motion for Approval of Cash Bond as Security for Stay Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(b) [Docket No. 352] filed by defendants Ethan Daniel Chumley and Atlantic Building Systems, LLC, d/b/a Armstrong Steel Corporation ("Armstrong"). On May 7, 2013, the Court ruled in favor of plaintiff General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC ("General Steel") on its claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., and against General Steel on its claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Docket No. 346 at 19-22, 31. The Court enjoined Armstrong from engaging in the specific misrepresentations for which it was found liable and awarded General Steel disgorgement of Armstrong's profits in the amount of $243,462.00, as well as costs to be taxed by the Clerk of Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and D.C.Colo.LCivR 54.1. Id. at 38-39.
On May 21, 2013, defendants filed the instant motions requesting that the Court stay execution of the monetary award pending its ruling on Defendants' Motion to Amend Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. See Docket No. 363. Armstrong has delivered to the Clerk of Court a cashier's check for $243,462.00 and requests that the Court accept this amount as security during the pendency of the anticipated motion. See Docket No. 352. General Steel does not oppose a stay, but argues that the amount tendered is insufficient as it does not account for General Steel's costs, pre- or post-judgment interest, attorney's fees that General Steel is seeking pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, and costs it will likely incur on appeal. See Docket Nos. 354, 360, and 361.
Under Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may stay the execution of judgment pending the resolution of a motion pursuant to Rule 59 so long as the Court fixes "appropriate terms for the opposing party's security." Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b)(3). Rule 62(b) is intended to preserve the status quo while protecting the prevailing party's interest in the judgment. See Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 359 n.8 (1996) ("The district court may only stay execution of the judgment pending the disposition of certain post-trial motions . . . if the court provides for the security of the judgment creditor."). Accordingly, "courts typically require security in the full amount of the judgment." In re Apollo Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig., 2008 WL 410625, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 13, 2008).
In contrast to a stay pending appeal, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d), courts enjoy greater discretion to determine the sum necessary to secure a stay pursuant to Rule 62(b). See Apollo Grp., 2008 WL 410625, at *1 n.1 ("If anything, due to the greater risk inherent in the longer stay under Rule 62(d), the standard governing the court's discretion in the Rule 62(b) context should be less restrictive."). "[T]he risk of adverse change in the status quo is less when comparing adequate security pending post-trial motions with adequate security pending appeal; that is, the post-trial motions will generally be resolved in far less time than an appeal and, therefore, the risk to plaintiffs' security is diminished." Ireland v. Dodson, 2009 WL 1559784, at *1 (D. Kan. May 29, 2009) (finding that a bond in the amount that jury awarded, excluding fees and costs, was sufficient to secure judgment creditor's interests during pendency of motion for new trial); see also United States v. Melot, 2012 WL 2914224, at *1 (D.N.M. May 23, 2012) ("both [62(b) and 62(d)] require some security for the opposing party, though Rule 62(b) does not specify the nature of the security."); Int'l Wood Processors v. Power Dry, Inc., 102 F.R.D. 212, 215 (D.S.C. 1984) ("the risk of an adverse change in the status quo is less when comparing adequate security pending post-trial motions with adequate security pending appeal").
The Court concludes that General Steel's interest in its judgment will be adequately protected by a bond that comprises the (1) $243,462.00 disgorgement award; (2) $67.00 in post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961