BRYANT v. HARRIS COUNTY GEORGIA et al
Filing
83
ORDER granting 80 Motion to Review Taxations of Costs. Plaintiff shall pay Defendants' costs as follows: $603.51 for Defendants Crystal Garren, Daniel Maddox, Donald Walker, Jeremy McDowell, Noel Flowers, Troy Moore, and Donald Barber; $40.00 for Defendant Alex Haden; and $468.63 for Defendant Georgia Department of Corrections. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 09/29/2020 (CCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
JOANN BRYANT,
*
Plaintiff,
*
vs.
*
CRYSTAL GAIL GARREN, et al.,
*
Defendants.
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-106 (CDL)
*
O R D E R
As the prevailing parties in this action, Defendants seek
to
recover
Defendants’
certain
bills
costs
of
from
costs,
the
$11,121.45 against Plaintiff.
follows:
Maddox,
Moore,
$6,035.10
Donald
and
for
Walker,
Donald
Plaintiff.
taxed
response
costs
to
totaling
Those costs are broken down as
Defendants
Jeremy
Barber
Clerk
In
Crystal
McDowell,
(“Corrections
Garren,
Noel
Officer
Daniel
Flowers,
Troy
Defendants”),
Taxation of Costs, ECF No. 74; $400.00 for Defendant Alex Haden,
Taxation
of
Costs,
ECF
No.
75;
and
$4,686.35
for
Defendant
Georgia Department of Corrections, Taxation of Costs, ECF No.
77.
Plaintiff filed an objection to the taxations of costs,
which the Court considered as a motion to review the Clerk’s
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).
(May 19, 2020), ECF No. 79.
Order 1
Although the objection was untimely
as to the taxations of costs that were entered on April 24,
2020,
the
Court
found
that
the
delay
was
due
to
excusable
neglect and determined that it should consider the objection on
the
merits.
Id.
at
2.
The
chief
objection was her inability to pay.
basis
for
Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff did not submit
enough evidence to establish an inability to pay, but the Court
allowed her to supplement her objection.
Id. at 3.
Now pending
before the Court is Plaintiff’s supplemental motion to review
the taxations of costs (ECF No. 80).
As
explained
in
the
remainder
of
this
order,
the
Court
finds that the Clerk correctly calculated the amount of costs;
however,
the
Court
reduces
the
award
of
costs
based
upon
Plaintiff’s indigency, the nature of Plaintiff’s claims, and the
balancing of the positive deterrent effect of shifting costs to
a losing party with the negative effect of such cost shifting on
access
to
the
courts,
particularly
precarious financial condition.
that
costs
$603.51
for
shall
be
light
of
the
party’s
Accordingly, the Court directs
awarded
Defendants
in
against
Crystal
Garren,
Plaintiff
Daniel
as
follows:
Maddox,
Donald
Walker, Jeremy McDowell, Noel Flowers, Troy Moore, and Donald
Barber;
$40.00
for
Defendant
Alex
Haden;
and
$468.63
for
Defendant Georgia Department of Corrections.
DISCUSSION
This action arose from the death of Larry Burden in the
Harris
County
Prison.
Plaintiff,
2
Burden’s
mother,
filed
a
wrongful
death
action
alleging
that
prison
officials
used
excessive force on Burden and were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs.
The Court granted summary judgment
in Defendants’ favor on all of Plaintiff’s federal claims and
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state
law claims.
Defendants filed bills of costs, and the Clerk
entered taxations of costs.
Plaintiff
grounds.
objects
to
the
taxations
of
costs
on
several
Defendants contend that the Court should not consider
the objection because Plaintiff did not object to the bills of
costs as permitted by the Court’s local rules and because they
contend that Plaintiff did not demonstrate excusable neglect.
The
Court
previously
determined
that
Plaintiff’s
objection
should be considered on the merits, and Defendants did not file
a motion for reconsideration.
The Court declines to reconsider
this ruling and will consider Plaintiff’s objections.
I.
Objections to Deposition Costs
The
bulk
of
Defendants’
costs
are
for
depositions,
and
Plaintiff contends that some of the costs are not recoverable.
“Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts” are
permitted if the depositions were “necessarily obtained for use
in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2).
recoverable,
however,
if
they
are
Deposition costs are not
“merely
incurred
for
convenience, to aid in thorough preparation, or for purposes of
3
investigation only.”
E.E.O.C. v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 620
(11th Cir. 2000).
The
“shipping
Corrections
and
Officer
handling
Defendants
costs”
videotaped depositions.
for
“HD
sought
MP4
viewing
$45.00
in
copy”
See ECF No. 71 at 7, 11, 13.
of
The
Corrections Officer Defendants assert that the shipping cost is
a standard delivery charge that should be considered a fee of
the court reporter.
Plaintiff presented no evidence that such
costs are not part of the standard delivery charge for modern
day depositions.
Accordingly, the Court declines to find the
charge unnecessary based on the present record.
The
Corrections
Officer
Defendants
sought
$1,141.25
in
costs for obtaining copies of several videotaped depositions.
See ECF No. 71 at 7, 11, 13.
depositions
separately,
and
costs for the transcripts.
They received transcripts of these
Plaintiff
does
not
challenge
the
Plaintiff noticed the depositions as
video depositions and stated that they would be taken before a
court
reporter
and
a
videographer.
There
was
no
objection.
Plaintiff now argues that it was not necessary for Defendants to
obtain a copy of the deposition recordings in addition to the
transcripts at the summary judgment stage.
The Court is not
convinced that it was unnecessary for the Corrections Officer
Defendants to obtain the video recordings.
recordings
were
not
submitted
to
4
the
Although the video
Court,
they
were
made
because Plaintiff required them to be.
It was not unreasonable
for Defendants to obtain the video recordings, in part because
the video recordings could capture testimony that differed from
the
stenographic
thought
transcript
Plaintiff
opposition
to
might
summary
and
try
to
in
part
because
introduce
judgment.
Since
the
Defendants
recordings
Plaintiff
chose
in
to
require that the depositions be videotaped, the Court declines
to strike the costs the Corrections Officer Defendants incurred
to obtain the recordings.
The
Corrections
Officer
Department
of
Corrections
depositions
of
Matthew
Raffield.
These
three
Defendants
obtained
Leopard,
the
transcripts
Tommy
individuals
and
Fountain,
were
the
Rule
Georgia
for
and
the
Alan
30(b)(6)
representatives for the Georgia Department of Corrections, one
of the Defendants in this action.
See ECF Nos. 43, 51, 54.
Defendants did not rely on these depositions in support of a
summary
judgment
motion,
but
that
does
not
mean
they
aren’t
taxable.
“Although use of a deposition at trial or in a summary
judgment
motion
tends
to
show
that
the
deposition
was
necessarily obtained for use in a case, such a showing is not
necessary to be taxable.”
Watson v. Lake Cty., 492 F. App’x
991, 996 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).
deposition
is
not
ultimately
used
as
“Thus, even where a
part
of
a
prevailing
party’s case, [the Eleventh Circuit has] held that the costs of
5
the deposition are taxable under § 1920 where no evidence shows
that the deposition was unrelated to an issue in the case at the
time it was taken.”
Id. at 996-97.
Here, Plaintiff alleged
that GDOC did not adequately train and supervise the Corrections
Officer Defendants.
Plaintiffs
the
a
depositions
of
cannot seriously dispute that
Defendant’s
30(b)(6)
representatives
regarding GDOC’s policies and training were related to issues in
the case when they were taken.
Accordingly, the cost of these
three depositions is taxable.
II.
Reduction for “Partial Success”
Plaintiff
asserts
that
even
if
the
costs
taxable, the Court should reduce the costs.
that
because
the
Court
declined
to
awarded
are
Plaintiff argues
exercise
supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, Defendants were
only partially successful and should not receive a full award of
costs.
Plaintiff
argues
that
Defendants
did
not
prevail
on
Plaintiff’s state law claims because they are still pending in
state court, so the Court should not award costs for discovery
concerning
the
state
law
claims.
Even
if
the
Court
were
persuaded by this argument (which it is not), Plaintiff’s state
law claims are based on the same underlying facts as her federal
law claims, and Plaintiff did not point to any portion of the
discovery that was irrelevant to the federal law claims and only
related to her state law claims.
6
Defendants prevailed on all of
Plaintiff’s federal law claims.
Thus, there is no question that
Defendants are the prevailing parties in this action and are
therefore entitled to recover their costs.
62 F.3d 351, 355 (11th Cir. 1995)
declined
to
exercise
its
See Head v. Medford,
(“That the district court
supplemental
jurisdiction
under
28
U.S.C. § 1367 and dismissed all of plaintiff’s remaining state
law claims, does not impair the fact that, as far as the federal
case was concerned, defendants prevailed.”).
III. Reduction Based on Inability to Pay
Finally,
eliminated
Plaintiff
or
reduced
argues
because
that
she
the
is
costs
unable
to
should
pay
be
them.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) “establishes a presumption
that costs are to be awarded to a prevailing party, but vests
the district court with discretion to decide otherwise.” Chapman
v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1038 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
This discretion “is not unfettered . . . ‘since denial of costs
is
in
the
nature
of
a
penalty
for
some
defection
on
[the
prevailing party’s] part in the course of the litigation.’” Id.
at 1039 (quoting Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc., 557 F.2d 521,
526 (5th Cir. 1977)).
“To defeat the presumption and deny full
costs, a district court must have and state a sound basis for
doing so.”
Circuit
in
Id.
After recounting this basic rule, the Eleventh
Chapman
stated
“that
a
non-prevailing
party’s
financial status is a factor that a district court may, but need
7
not, consider in its award of costs pursuant to Rule 54(d).”
Id.
Before
status,
considering
though,
the
the
district
non-prevailing
court
must
“require
documentation of a true inability to pay.”
those
rare
circumstances
where
the
party’s
Id.
financial
substantial
And, “[e]ven in
non-prevailing
party’s
financial circumstances are considered in determining the amount
of costs to be awarded, a court may not decline to award any
costs at all.”
requirement
Id.
that
“Subject to that restriction and to the
there
be
clear
proof
of
the
non-prevailing
party’s dire financial circumstances before that factor can be
considered,
we
leave
it
to
the
district
whether to do so in a particular case.”
court’s
discretion
Id.1
Here, Plaintiff presented evidence that Burden’s estate had
no assets.
Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit and supporting
documentation, including part of her most recent tax return, a
bank statement, a paycheck stub, and a mortgage statement.
This
evidence establishes that Plaintiff has two grandchildren that
live with her and are considered her dependents; she cares for
The Eleventh Circuit vacated the full award of costs in Chapman
because it could not tell if the district court realized that it had
“limited discretion to consider a non-prevailing party’s financial
condition in calculating the amount of costs to award.” Chapman, 229
F.3d at 1039. The Eleventh Circuit remanded so the district court
could reconsider the full costs award it had made—“We do not mean to
imply that the district court must consider [the non-prevailing
party’s] financial situation in calculating the amount of costs to be
awarded, even if he proves his financial situation is extreme, but
only that the court must realize that it has the discretion to do so.”
Id. at 1140.
1
8
and financially supports her mother, who has advanced dementia;
she has no savings account; she had income of $22,346.00 in 2019
and
received
currently
a
federal
works
as
tax
refund
preschool
of
$8,757
teacher
for
earning
2019;
she
approximately
$2,000 per month (including a set amount each pay period, plus
$10.39 per hour as a “floater” for some number of hours per pay
period); and she owns a home that is subject to a mortgage with
a
payment
of
approximately
$859
per
month,
although
she
qualified for a mortgage assistance program when she took an
eight-month leave of absence from work between June 2019 and
February 2020 to care for her mother.
Plaintiff also asserts
that her monthly expenses are approximately $2,000.
The Court
is
that
satisfied
that
Plaintiff’s
submissions
establish
her
present income from her employment is at or near the poverty
level.
The
Court
finds
that
Plaintiff
does
not
have
the
financial resources necessary to pay the full amount of costs
taxed by the Clerk.
“Even
district
where
court
presumption
the
needs
that
a
non-prevailing
party
a
is
indigent,
sound
basis
to
overcome
the
prevailing
party
is
entitled
to
the
strong
costs.”
Zainulabeddin v. Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trustees, 749 F. App’x
776, 787 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).
little guidance from binding
“sound
basis”
or
the
precedent on
analytical
9
The Court has found
what
framework
for
constitutes a
making
that
determination.
Given the appropriate case, the appellate courts
may construct an elaborate balancing test to assist those of us
in the trenches.
But one does not yet exist.
All we’ve been
told is that we have the authority in limited circumstances to
reduce a cost award.
See Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1039.
We just
need a sound basis for doing so.
Understanding that the presumption
of a
full cost award
cannot be overcome without a sound basis for doing so, the Court
reduces
the
Plaintiff’s
level.
cost
income
is
at
here
or
for
below
the
the
following
well
reasons.
accepted
poverty
While she is not homeless and living on the streets, she
struggles
to
obligations.
$11,000.
would
award
meet
her
legitimate
and
necessary
financial
Plaintiff cannot pay a cost bill in excess of
Imposing a judgment against her for the full amount
likely
make
her
insolvent
recoverable in its entirety.
and
quite
frankly
not
be
An award of 10% of this amount
would still cause her financial strain, but the Court finds she
would be able to pay that amount. 2
Though the Court understands
it should not consider the relative wealth of the parties—and
thus is not doing so—the Court finds it noteworthy that the
costs
Defendants
seek
were
paid
by
the
State,
and
there
is
nothing in the record to suggest that the individual Defendants
Any cost award will be the personal obligation of the Plaintiff and
not her attorneys. No argument has been made that her attorneys are
permitted or intend to reimburse Plaintiff for this obligation.
2
10
will be responsible for any of those costs.
observes
that
Plaintiff’s
case,
The Court also
although
ultimately
unsuccessful, was an important one.
She lost her son while he
was
Her
in
Defendants’
custody.
experienced
lawyers
investigated the matter, and upon doing so, found that a good
faith
claim
general
rule
could
that
be
asserted.
costs
should
One
be
justification
awarded
to
the
for
the
prevailing
party is that it can provide a deterrence for the filing of weak
cases.
Court
Although Plaintiff and her counsel lost this case, the
cannot
find
that
the
case
was
so
weak
that
requiring
Plaintiff to pay Defendants’ full costs is necessary in light of
her financial condition.
The Court also is cognizant of the
other side of the loser pays coin; requiring the loser to pay
full
costs
in
every
circumstance
can
close
access
to
the
courthouse for those with limited means who cannot afford to
lose due to a substantial cost award.
Based on the foregoing
and under the circumstances presented in this case, the Court
finds that requiring Plaintiff to pay a total of $1,112.14 of
Defendants’ costs is sufficient and just.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s supplemental
motion to review the taxations of costs (ECF No. 80) is granted
to the extent that Plaintiff shall pay the Defendants’ costs as
follows: $603.51 for Defendants Crystal Garren, Daniel Maddox,
11
Donald Walker, Jeremy McDowell, Noel Flowers, Troy Moore, and
Donald Barber; $40.00 for Defendant Alex Haden; and $468.63 for
Defendant Georgia Department of Corrections.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of September, 2020.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
12
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?