FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLAINTIFFS' BILL OF COSTS1

RICHARD L. PUGLISI, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs, filed on March 15, 2019. See ECF No. 169. Defendant filed her Objections to the Bill of Costs on March 18, 2019. ECF No. 170. Plaintiffs filed their Reply on March 22, 2019. ECF No. 173. Defendant then filed an Errata to her Objections, which appears to withdraw some, but not all of her Objections. See ECF No. 174. This matter is suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d). After a review of the parties' submissions and the relevant authority, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the Bill of Costs be GRANTED.

ANALYSIS

On March 1, 2019, the Clerk entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law issued by the district court on February 28, 2019, following a bench trial. See ECF Nos. 167, 168.

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, "[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney's fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The costs that the court is authorized to tax under Rule 54(d)(1) are enumerated at 28 U.S.C. § 1920:

28 U.S.C. § 1920. In their Bill of Costs Plaintiffs request $3,300.05, which includes court filing fees, transcript costs, and copying costs. ECF No. 169.

Defendant argues that the Bill of Costs should be denied because it is untimely and Plaintiffs' counsel failed to meet and confer with Defendant prior to filing. ECF No. 170. The Court rejects Defendant's objections. First, the Bill of Costs was filed within fourteen days after entry of judgment, which is timely. See Local Rule 54.2(b) (providing that a Bill of Costs shall be filed and served within fourteen days after entry of judgment). Second, Local Rule 54.2(c) requires that a Bill of Costs be supported by an affidavit that "contain[s] a representation that counsel met and conferred in an effort to resolve any disputes about the claimed costs, and the prevailing party shall state the results of such a conference, or that the prevailing party made a good faith effort to arrange such a conference, setting forth the reasons the conference was not held." LR54.2(c). The declaration submitted by Plaintiffs' counsel does not contain any representation that the parties met and conferred prior to the filing of the Bill of Costs and Plaintiffs do not address this issue in their Reply. See ECF Nos. 169, 173. It appears that Defendants' Objections to the Bill of Costs could have been avoided if Plaintiffs' counsel had attempted to confer with Defendant's counsel prior to filing as required by the Local Rules. However, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to deny the Bill of Costs on this basis alone. Although Plaintiffs failed to comply with this requirement, all of the costs requested by Plaintiffs are allowable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Local Rule 54.2. Because the costs requested are allowable under the applicable statute and were necessarily incurred in this case, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs be GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

The Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs for $3,300.05.

IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.