Unisource Discovery, Inc. v. Unisource Discovery, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23276-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES

UNISOURCE DISCOVERY, INC., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. UNISOURCE DISCOVERY, LLC and STEVEN A. CERASALE, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. ______________________________________/

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 386], regarding Defendant/Counter- Plaintiffs’, Unisource Discovery, LLC and Steven A. Cerasale (collectively, “Defendants”), Memorandum in Support of Bill of Costs, (the “Motion for Costs”), [ECF No. 371]. On February 15, 2023, the Court referred the Motion for Costs to Judge Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a report and recommendation. [ECF No. 375]. On May 25, 2023, Judge Otazo- Reyes issued her Report recommending that the Motion for Costs be granted in part. [ECF No. 386]. No objections were filed be either party.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

Having reviewed the Report for clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion should be granted in part.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 386], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.

2. Defendants’ Motion for Costs, [ECF No. 371], is GRANTED in part.

3. Defendants are hereby awarded $2,643.60 in taxable costs as the prevailing party in this action.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of June, 2023.

Df BL 4 UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE