Patrick v. Bishop State Community College et al
ORDER granting in part & denying in part the 37 Motion to Retax as set out. The defendants are awarded costs of $1,189.21. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 7/15/2011. Copies to parties. (mpp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DEBORAH D. PATRICK,
BISHOP STATE COMMUNITY
COLLEGE, etc., et al.,
) CIVIL ACTION 10-0188-WS-M
This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motion to re-tax costs. (Doc.
37). The plaintiff declined the opportunity to respond, (Doc. 38), and the motion is ripe
The defendants seek taxation of $1,229.21, all of it incurred in connection with
four depositions taken in the case: the plaintiff, two 30(b)(6) representatives, and a
Court reporter fees for “stenographic transcripts” that were “necessarily obtained
for use in the case” are properly taxable. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). “It is not necessary to use
a deposition at trial for it to be taxable, but admission into evidence or use during crossexamination tends to show that it was necessarily obtained.” United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 621 (11th Cir. 2000).
“A district court may tax costs associated with the depositions submitted by the parties in
support of their summary judgment motions.” Id. (internal quotes omitted). “Taxation of
deposition costs of witnesses on the losing party’s witness list is reasonable because the
listing of those witnesses indicated both that the [prevailing party] might need the
deposition transcripts to cross-examine the witnesses, ... and that the information those
people had on the subject matter of this suit was not so irrelevant or so unimportant that
their depositions were outside the bound of discovery.” Id. (internal quotes omitted).
Such costs are not taxable if they were not “related to an issue which was present in the
case at the time the deposition was taken.” Id. (internal quotes omitted). A party may
even recover the cost of his own deposition if it was reasonably necessary, such as to
allow his counsel to confine impeachment to its proper limits. Id. at 622.
Under these principles, the costs associated with all four depositions is properly
taxable. The defendants used the plaintiff’s deposition in support of their successful
motion for summary judgment, they required a copy of the 30(b)(6) depositions to
prepare for trial and confine impeachment, and the plaintiff’s deposition of another
employee reflected that the defendants might need that transcript to cross-examine the
Any portion of the cost of a deposition that was incurred “for the convenience of
the attorney” rather than being “necessarily obtained for use in the case” is not properly
taxable. Newman v. A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co., 648 F.2d 330, 337 (5th Cir. 1981).
Likewise, “[c]osts associated with delivering, shipping, or handling transcripts are
ordinary business expenses and are not recoverable.” Kerns v. Pro-Foam, Inc., 2007 WL
2710372 at *3 (S.D. Ala. 2007) (internal quotes omitted). The defendants are thus not
entitled to recover the $40.00 charge for delivery, condensed transcript, index and e-tran.
For the reasons set forth above, the defendants’ motion to re-tax costs is granted
in part. The defendants are awarded costs of $1,189.21. In all other respects, the
defendants’ motion is denied.
DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of July, 2011.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF 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?