Thompson Everett Inc v. National Cable Adv ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
THOMPSON EVERETT, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL CABLE ADVERTISING, L.P.;
CABLE NETWORKS, INCORPORATED;
No. 96-1346
CABLE MEDIA CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
COX CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,
Party in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CA-93-452)
Submitted: April 17, 1997
Decided: May 7, 1997
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Sa'ad El-Amin, Beverly D. Crawford, EL-AMIN & CRAWFORD,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen A. Northup, Andrew G.
Mauck, MAYS & VALENTINE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Thompson Everett, Inc. challenges the district court's
order denying its motions objecting to the taxation of costs in favor
of the Appellees for all depositions submitted with a successful
motion for summary judgment. Although the motions contained tech-
nical defects, the district court considered them on the merits and
denied relief. Finding no error, we affirm.
Appellant filed an antitrust complaint against three large, national
cable companies. Depositions were taken from fifty-eight witnesses,
most of them noticed by Appellant. After discovery, the Appellees
filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted, and they
were then awarded costs for these depositions. Appellant challenged
the award on the ground that the parties agreed to take the depositions
of more witnesses than allowed by local rule.* The district court,
interpreting its own rule, found no violation and denied Appellant's
motions for relief.
A district court's interpretation of its own rules is entitled to great
deference, and we find no abuse of discretion here. See United States
Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Lawrenson, 334 F.2d 464, 467 (4th Cir. 1964)
(district court is the best judge of its own rules). Only four non-party
witnesses were attributed to the Appellees. Appellant asserts that ten
more should have been attributed to them. Even if this were correct,
there would be no violation of the rule because the Appellees were
entitled to five non-party depositions each for a total of fifteen.
We therefore affirm the order of the district court. We dispense
_________________________________________________________________
*Local Rule 11.1(B) allows each party to only depose five non-party
witnesses unless the court, pursuant to a written motion, permits other-
wise.
2
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the material before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3