This decision addresses the costs for a three-day trial where the plaintiffs were largely successful.
The court considered the plaintiffs' Rule 49 offer to settle, which they argued triggered substantial indemnity costs, and the defendants' arguments against it, including the implied withdrawal of the offer by subsequent settlement discussions.
The court found that the plaintiffs' Rule 49 offer was not implicitly withdrawn by subsequent non-Rule 49 offers, distinguishing prior case law.
The court also assessed the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' claimed costs under Rule 57.01, reducing them due to excessive lawyer time, duplication of effort, and disallowing a specific disbursement for a legal opinion deemed unnecessary.
Ultimately, the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs $147,966.49 in costs.
