Baysa v. Gualtieri et al

Filing 79

ORDER on 72 Bill of costs - proposed filed by Robert Gualtieri, Charles Redinger, Stephanie Archer. The Courtroom Deputy Clerk is directed to enter a Bill of Costs in favor of Defendants in accord with the attached order. Signed by Judge William F. Jung on 11/15/2018. (CCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

MAT S. BAYSA,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:17-cv-434-T-02SPF

ROBERT GUALTIERI in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Pinellas County, et al.,
/

ORDER ON COSTS
Upon due consideration of the proposed Bill of Costs (Dkt. 72), Plaintiff’s
Objection (Dkt. 73), and Defendant’s Reply (Dkt. 77), and having previously
determined that the criminal trial transcript was necessary and helpful (Dkt. 76),
the Court finds additional costs allowable.
The prevailing party may recover the “costs of making copies of any
materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920 (4). “Copies attributable to discovery . . . are recoverable.” EEOC v. W &
O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 623 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding “whether the prevailing party
could have reasonably believed that it was necessary to copy the papers” is the
standard); Health First, Inc. v. Hynes, No. 6:11-cv-715-Orl-41KRS, 2015 WL

12977509, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2015). Copies made merely for the
convenience of counsel are not recoverable. Hynes, 2015 WL 12977509, at *7
(citation omitted).
Plaintiff contends the $2,384.70 in copying and printing costs are
attributable to printing documents from the electronic file in this case for the
convenience of counsel, and attributable to documents already in Defendants’
possession. Of the total 15,898 pages copied, 11,638 copies were associated with
responding to discovery, 2,190 pages were copied pursuant to an order of this
Court, 1,606 copies were printed out from the electronic docket in this case, and
the remaining 464 pages were Plaintiff’s medical records.
All of the copies made responding to the request for production were
necessary and not for the convenience of counsel. The copies originated from
materials electronically stored or on microfiche. The documents were then
reviewed for privilege and other issues requiring redaction such as statutorily
protected confidential information. The redacted and non-redacted documents
were then copied as the production set. As Defendants note, a large portion of
those produced documents were filed by Plaintiff as part of the summary judgment
record.

-2-

The court-ordered pages were necessarily obtained, in addition to other
copies made from the electronic docket in preparation for the oral argument
scheduled on the summary judgment. The medical records were documents
electronically received from third parties, which were printed out and are
considered associated with discovery. At the time the copies were made,
Defendants reasonably believed it was necessary.
ACCORDINGLY, Defendants are awarded costs in the amount of
$7,031.95. The Courtroom Deputy Clerk is directed to enter a Bill of Costs in
favor of Defendants.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on November 15, 2018.

s/William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Counsel of Record

-3-