Jefferson v. Burger King Corporation
Filing
58
ORDER granting in part 50 Defendant's Motion for Bill of Costs. Please see Order for details. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 9/11/2012. (sry)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-61971-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
STEVE JEFFERSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BURGER KING CORPORATION,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Costs
[DE 50] and supporting Memorandum [DE 51, 52] (together, “Motion”). The Court has
carefully considered the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response [DE 54], and Defendant’s Reply
[DE 55], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
Defendant Burger King Corporation moves to tax costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), and S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.3(c), following this Court’s entry of
summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Defendant requests that $2,038.60 in
deposition costs be taxed against Plaintiff Steve Jefferson. Plaintiff opposes
Defendant’s Motion, arguing that the Court should defer taxation of costs until after the
Eleventh Circuit decides Plaintiff’s pending appeal of this Court’s judgment.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute,
these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—
should be allowed to the prevailing party.” A prevailing party’s recoverable costs are
listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920.1 Here, because Defendant was granted summary judgment
on all of Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant is the prevailing party and is entitled to recover
taxable costs as permitted by section 1920.
Defendant seeks to recover $2,038.60 in costs associated with Plaintiff’s
deposition. In this regard, section 1920 permits taxation of “[f]ees for printed or
electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920(2). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s deposition, which Defendant used in support
of its motion for summary judgment, was necessarily obtained for use in the case.
Thus, the $1,685.60 cost of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript is taxable. See EEOC 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.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court also finds that the
court-reporter attendance fee of $315.00 is reasonable and therefore recoverable under
section 1920. See Chacon v. El Milagro Care Ctr., Inc., No. 07-22835-CIV, 2010 WL
3023833, at *7 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2010) (awarding prevailing parties $270.00 for courtreporter appearance fees). The Court concludes, however, that $38.00 in convenience
and delivery charges relating to Plaintiff’s deposition are not recoverable.2 See Patrick
1
Section 1920 provides that the following costs are taxable: (1) fees of the clerk
and marshal; (2) fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily
obtained for use in the case; (3) fees and distributions for printing and witnesses;
(4) fees for exemplification and copies of materials necessarily obtained for use in the
case; (5) docket fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1923; and (6) compensation of court-appointed
experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of
special interpretation services. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
2
The court reporter’s invoice includes a $30.00 charge for “LITIGATION
SUPPORT CD/ASCII/MINI” and an $8.00 charge for delivery. DE 50 at 3.
2
v. Bishop State Cmty. Coll., No. 10–0188–WS–M, 2011 WL 2784585, at *1 (S.D. Ala.
July 15, 2011) (“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. Likewise, costs associated with delivering, shipping, or handling
transcripts are ordinary business expenses and are not recoverable. The defendants
are thus not entitled to recover the $40.00 charge for delivery, condensed transcript,
index and e-tran.” (internal quotation marks, citations & alteration omitted)). Based on
these findings, Defendant may tax a total of $2,000.60 in deposition costs against
Plaintiff.3
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Bill of
Costs [DE 50] is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Burger King Corporation shall
recover $2,000.60 in costs from Plaintiff Steve Jefferson. The Court will enter a
separate final judgment regarding these costs.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 11th day of September, 2012.
Copies to:
Counsel of record and pro se parties via CM/ECF
3
The Court declines Plaintiff’s request to defer taxation of costs pending appeal.
As Defendant notes, the deferral language that Plaintiff quotes from the Rule 54(d)
advisory committee notes applies to attorney’s fees, not taxable costs. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(d)(2) advisory committee notes (1993). In any event, the Court finds no valid
basis for delaying an award of costs to Defendant.
3
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?