United States District Court, D. Minnesota
R. Weinstine, Esq., Justice Ericson Lindell, Esq., and Brent
Lorentz, Esq., Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Minneapolis, MN,
on behalf of Plaintiff.
Felicia Boyd, Esq., Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Minneapolis,
MN; David Hamilton, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP,
Baltimore, MD; Jason Hicks, Esq., and Amanda Norris Ames,
Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Washington, D.C., on
behalf of Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge
for a ruling on Plaintiff Inline Packaging, LLC's
(“Inline”) Objection [Docket No. 1062] to
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois' January 11, 2019 Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Docket No. 1061].
In the R&R, Judge Brisbois recommends denying
Inline's Motion to Stay Calculation of Costs [Docket No.
1047]. For the reasons set forth below, the Objection is
overruled and the R&R is adopted.
2015, Inline filed this lawsuit against Defendant Graphic
Packaging International, LLC (“Graphic”) alleging
antitrust violations, tortious interference, and
misappropriation of trade secrets. See Compl.
[Docket No. 1]. On September 5, 2018, this Court issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Docket No. 1035] granting
summary judgment in Graphic's favor on all claims.
Judgment for Graphic was entered on September 6, 2018.
See J. [Docket No. 1037]. Inline filed a Notice of
Appeal [Docket No. 1040] on October 5, 2018.
October 5, 2018, Graphic filed a Bill of Costs [Docket No.
1039] seeking $304, 930.89 in costs against Inline. Inline
filed an Objection [Docket No. 1053] to Graphic's Bill of
Costs, arguing that most of the costs are not taxable.
October 19, 2018, Inline filed this Motion to Stay
Calculation or Taxation of Costs (“Motion to
Stay”). Although the matter is a post-judgment issue
that has not been referred by the undersigned, Inline noticed
the Motion to Stay to be heard by Magistrate Judge Brisbois.
R&R at 4; Hr'g Notice [Docket No. 1049].
addressing the Motion to Stay, Judge Brisbois determined that
the Motion fell outside of his delegated duties under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) because that provision is limited
to pretrial matters and the Motion to Stay is a post-judgment
matter. R&R at 4. Judge Brisbois also determined that he
lacked authority to submit proposed findings and
recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) because
the Motion to Stay had not been designated to him by a
district court judge. Id. Nevertheless, in an
attempt to conserve the time and resources of the parties and
the Court, Judge Brisbois addressed the issues raised in the
Motion to Stay and issued a Report and Recommendation to deny
the Motion. Id. at 4, 8.
Standard of Review
parties disagree over the applicable standard of review. The
Motion to Stay is nondispositive, and nondispositive motions
are typically reviewed for clear error. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a);
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). However, Inline argues that
the de novo standard should apply because the motion is not a
“pretrial” matter under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). The confusion stems from Inline's
procedurally improper scheduling and noticing of this
post-trial matter before Judge Brisbois. To avoid further
procedural confusion, the Court will conduct a de novo