Filed: May 08, 2019
Latest Update: May 08, 2019
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 28] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . Plaintiff Aaron Petitt used a pejorative ethnic phrase in a text message he sent to another Cleveland police officer and the City of Cleveland (the "City") suspended him. 1 Petitt—and the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association—sued the City alleging free speech and due process violations. 2 On April 10, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendant. 3 The City now moves for $2,213.53 in costs for transcribin
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 28] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . Plaintiff Aaron Petitt used a pejorative ethnic phrase in a text message he sent to another Cleveland police officer and the City of Cleveland (the "City") suspended him. 1 Petitt—and the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association—sued the City alleging free speech and due process violations. 2 On April 10, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendant. 3 The City now moves for $2,213.53 in costs for transcribing..
More
OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 28]
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Aaron Petitt used a pejorative ethnic phrase in a text message he sent to another Cleveland police officer and the City of Cleveland (the "City") suspended him.1 Petitt—and the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association—sued the City alleging free speech and due process violations.2 On April 10, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendant.3
The City now moves for $2,213.53 in costs for transcribing and electronically recording two depositions.4
Generally, the Court awards costs to a party who prevails on summary judgment.5 However, the Court may, in certain circumstances, decline to award costs.6
Here, while certain factors favor costs—the sought costs are not unreasonably large, and the City did not bog down the case—the countervailing factors are stronger.7
Primarily, this was an unusually close case.8 The City's ambiguous rules and disproportionate punishment treaded dangerously close to a constitutional violation.
Further, Plaintiffs litigated this case in good faith.9
Finally, this case was of some public importance.10 The City's employees—and the public at large—benefit from clear City policies and predictable punishments, which the case sought to promote. Awarding costs here might discourage future suits that seek to keep the City honest.11
Thus, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
