We previously reported that Hilton had scored a big win when the Court granted its motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the “human intervention” test from the FCC’s predictive dialer rulings survived ACA Int’l, and Intelligent Mobile Connect system was not an ATDS under this standard.  Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., No. 8:16-cv-952-JDW-AAS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162867 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2018)

Just last week, Hilton was also successful in obtaining a sizeable award of costs against the Plaintiff following its summary judgment victory.

As the “prevailing party,” Hilton moved the Court to recover its costs pursuant to FRCP 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. section 1920.  Hilton asked for the following: (1) transcript costs totaling $9,192.85 for the depositions of the named Plaintiff (Melanie Glasser), Hilton’s 30(b)(6) witness, the witness with personal knowledge of the manufacturer and seller of the dialing system at issue, Plaintiff’s expert, and Defendant’s expert; and (2) photocopying costs in the amount of $910.65.  Hilton requested a total of $10,103.50 plus interest.

 In response, Plaintiff filed an opposition objecting to Hilton’s request for “expedited delivery and rough drafts.”

The Court awarded the costs that Plaintiff did not dispute, including photocopying fees and the costs associated with the depositions of Hilton’s 30(b)(6) witness, the witness with personal knowledge of the manufacturer and seller of the dialing system at issue, and Defendant’s expert.  To the extent that Plaintiff had challenged Hilton’s request for fees associated with the depositions of the named plaintiff and plaintiff’s expert, the Court stated that Hilton did “not provide any basis for why expedited delivery of rough drafts were necessary for use in this case.”

The Court reduced the bill of cost by $1,710.10 pursuant to Plaintiff’s opposition, and awarded $8,393.40 in costs to Hilton.

Photo Credit: Martin Hauenstein on Pexels.com.

[View source.]