Cohen v. DeKalb County School District

Filing 161

ORDER awarding costs of $2,316.16 to Defendant and OVERRULING 159 Plaintiff's Objections to Bill of Costs. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 8/17/2012. (jtj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
MARVIN WILLIAM COHEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:09-cv-1153-WSD

DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Marvin William Cohen’s (“Plaintiff”)
Opposition to Defendants [sic] Bill of Costs (“Plaintiff’s Objections”) [159].
I.

BACKGROUND
On June 26, 2012, judgment was entered in favor of the DeKalb County

School District (“Defendant”) and the Clerk of Court ordered that Defendant
recover its costs against Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 [157]. Defendant filed its
Bill of Costs [158] on July 26, 2012. The Bill of Costs included:
a. Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
necessarily obtained for use in the case: $2,132.72;
b. Fees and disbursements for printing: $81.71; and,

c. Fees for exemplification and cost of making copies where the
copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case: $101.73.
The total fees claimed were $2,316.16.
Plaintiff challenges Defendant’s Bill of Costs because it “does not
‘specifically designate or itemize’ what transcripts or copies for which it is seeking
taxation.” (Pl.’s Obj. at 1). Plaintiff objects further to the costs claimed because
“Defendant fail[ed] to attach any invoices; itemizations; nor does it identify which
transcripts it is seeking taxation [sic]” and Defendant failed to show that the
depositions for which transcript costs are requested were for depositions that were
“necessarily obtained for us in the case,” noting that the depositions were not
“received in evidence.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff next contends that that cost of the
transcription of depositions of “the prevailing party,” here the Defendant, are not
recoverable, citing Jamison v. Cooper, 111 F.R.D. 350, 351 (N.D. Ga. 1986) as
authority. Defendant filed its Response to Plaintiff’s Objection to Bill of Costs, to
which it attached invoices for the costs for which it filed for payment, and
responded to Plaintiff’s argument that costs related to depositions of Defendant’s
witnesses are precluded as a reimbursable cost.

2

II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard on award of costs to the prevailing party

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, unless the
Court orders otherwise, that “costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed
to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The costs permitted to be taxed
against an opposing party are listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and include: (1) fees of the
clerk and marshal; (2) court reporter fees for all or any part of the stenographic
transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) fees and disbursements for
printing and witnesses; (4) fees for exemplification and copies of any materials
necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) docket fees; and (6) compensation for
court-appointed experts. Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 are at issue here. Whether to
award allowable costs and in what amount is a matter within the Court’s discretion.
10 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2668 (3d ed. 1998). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s challenges to
the costs assessed against him and considers these challenges separately below.
B.

Transcription reimbursement

Defendant has represented that the deposition transcripts for which
reimbursement is requested were depositions of Plaintiff’s witnesses, and a copy of
the transcript of the defense witnesses to support Defendant’s motions for

3

summary judgment. The depositions of a non-prevailing party’s witnesses is
generally an allowable cost and the depositions and transcription costs for the
prevailing party’s witnesses are allowed, in the Court’s discretion, especially as
they are used to support a dispositive motion. EEOC v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600,
620-21 (11th Cir. 2000); Tilton v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 115 F.3d 1471, 1474
(10th Cir. 1997). Having evaluated the cost reimbursement requested here, the
Court determines the transcription and copy costs claims are allowable costs.
Plaintiff’s objection to them is overruled.
C.

Other costs

The Court has reviewed the other costs claims and determines they also are
appropriate to be claimed and reimbursed and any objection to them is overruled.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants

[sic] Bill of Costs (“Plaintiff’s Objections”) [159] is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that costs are awarded to Defendant in the
aggregate amount of $2,316.16.

4

SO ORDERED this 17th day of August, 2012.

_________________________________________

WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5