Hollon v. DAS North America, Inc.
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is hereby ORDERED that the 37 objections to the Bill of Costs are OVERRULED. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 11/2/2016. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
LAPORSCHE HOLLON,
Plaintiff,
DAS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 2:15cv464-WHA
)
(wo)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the court on the Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Bill of Costs
(Doc. #37).
On August 26, 2016, this court entered Judgment in favor of DAS North America, Inc.
and against the Plaintiff, LaPorsche Hollon, and taxed costs against the Plaintiff.
Costs may be awarded pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), which provides
that costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless
the court otherwise directs. The costs taxed, however, may not exceed those permitted by 28
U.S.C. §1920, which allows for
(A) Serving a writ of possession, partition, execution, attachment in rem, or
(B) libel in admiralty, warrant, attachment, summons, complaints, or any other
(C) writ, order or process in any case or proceeding.
(B) Serving a subpoena or summons for a witness or appraiser.
(C) Forwarding any writ, order, or process to another judicial district for service.
(D) The preparation of any notice of sale, proclamation in admiralty, or other
public notice or bill of sale.
(E) The keeping of attached property (including boats, vessels, or other property
attached or libeled), actual expenses incurred, such as storage, moving, boat hire,
or other special transportation, watchmen's or keepers' fees, insurance, and an
hourly rate, including overtime, for each deputy marshal required for special services,
such as guarding, inventorying, and moving.
(F) Copies of writs or other papers furnished at the request of any party.
(G) Necessary travel in serving or endeavoring to serve any process, writ, or order,
except in the District of Columbia, with mileage to be computed from the place
where service is returnable to the place of service or endeavor.
(H) Overtime expenses incurred by deputy marshals in the course of serving or
executing civil process.
The Defendant filed its Bill of Costs on September 2, 2016, seeking $35.00 for fees for
service of summons and subpoena, $2,098.25 for fees for printed or electronically recorded
transcripts, and $942.00 for fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies, for a total of
$3,075.25.
The Plaintiff has objected to the Bill of Costs, stating that the $35 for a nonparty
subpoena service to Aerotek, Inc. was unnecessary because Aerotek, Inc. was a former employer
of the Plaintiff’s and this evidence was not relied upon in the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. The Plaintiff objects to the taxation of the fees incurred for the deposition of
LaPorsche Hollon on the grounds that much of the questioning in the deposition was irrelevant
and that the deposition was not critical to the Defendant’s success on summary judgment. The
Plaintiff finally objects to the costs for copies, stating that $70 paid to the Department of Labor,
$320.00 paid to Verizon, and $550.00 paid to CallExperts were not necessary or necessarily
obtained for use in the case.
As to the subpoena to Aerotek, Inc., the Defendant states that, unlike the case relied on by
the Plaintiff in her objections, the Defendant’s subpoena was for documents. The Defendant
states that records from an employee’s previous employer can be helpful in presenting an afteracquired evidence argument for limiting damages or might reveal a pattern of behavior or
information regarding a plaintiff’s knowledge of employment laws.
With regard to the deposition of the Plaintiff, LaPorsche Hollon, the Defendant explains
that the deposition had to be conducted over two days because during the initial day of her
deposition, she revealed that she kept a book of notes on incidents occurring during her
employment which she had not given to her lawyer, so the second day was necessary to question
her about those notes. The Plaintiff’s deposition was also referred to throughout the Defendant’s
brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. #26).
With regard to the records and copying costs, specifically Verizon call records and
records of CallExperts, the Defendant points out that much of the evidence presented relevant to
the Motion for Summary Judgment had to do with communications between the Plaintiff and
George Williams over cell phones, and that there was an issue of the Plaintiff’s absences which
are recorded by CallExperts. The Department of Labor costs are said by the Defendant to have
been incurred because the Plaintiff resigned from her employment and claimed constructive
discharge, so the Defendant was seeking information about her employment after she left
employment with the Defendant as relevant to damages, and the circumstances under which the
Plaintiff left her employment with the Defendant.
“[L]ike with depositions, in evaluating copying costs, the court should consider whether
the prevailing party could have reasonably believed that it was necessary to copy the papers at
issue.” U.S. E.E.O.C. v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 623 (11th Cir. 2000). In reviewing the
arguments by the Plaintiff in support of her objection, and the explanation and documentation by
the Defendant in response, the court concludes that that standard has been met by the claim for
costs for the deposition and copies. The court also finds reasonable the Defendant’s explanation
of the need for subpoena of the Plaintiff’s former employer. See, e.g., Santana v. RCSH
Operations, LLC, No. 10-61376-CIV, 2012 WL 3779013, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2012)
(finding Defendant's explanations sufficient and awarding the costs for the service of the
multiple subpoenas served on former employers).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the objections to the Bill of Costs are
OVERRULED.
Done this 2nd day of November, 2016.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?