
USCA1 Opinion

	




        December 14, 1994       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1773                               WILLIAM GOCHIS, ET AL.,                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,                                          v.                             ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.                                        _____________                                 ____________________            Thomas M.  Hefferon  with whom  James W.  Nagle was  on brief  for            ___________________             _______________        appellant.            Sarah  Tucker  with  whom  Nelson  P.  Lovins  was  on  brief  for            _____________              __________________        appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________               Per Curiam.  The  brief summary order by the  district court          does not, in this  instance, give us a sufficient basis to review          its  decision largely denying Allstate's requests  for costs as a          prevailing party.                On the one hand,  after reading the briefs and  hearing oral          argument, it appears that  the grant of judgment to  Allstate was          not  predicated on  a  single  point of  law  that, at  the  time          depositions  were taken and copies made, was dispositive.  On the          other hand,  if some, but not all,  of the depositions and copies          have proven clearly  unnecessary, irrelevant,  or cumulative,  we          lack the exposure  and vantage point of  the trial judge to  make          such a discriminating determination.               We  vacate the existing judgment  and remand to the district          court  for  reconsideration  of  whether,  and  to  what  extent,          Allstate  is entitled  to reimbursement.   Costs to  appellant on          appeal.                                         -2-
