Dopson v. Steverson et al
Filing
76
ORDER Overruling in part and Sustaining in part 72 Response filed by John Dopson re 70 Bill of Costs filed by Ron Bowdoin, Betty Riddle, Chris Steverson. The Clerk is directed to tax costs in the amount of $10,774.59 against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 12/18/2018. (pts)
FiLLO
U.S.D!STR!CT COURT
IN THE XJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
JOHN DOPSON,
AUuloTADR..
2018 DEC 18 PM 1^:26
CLERK
50. D^S
Plaintiff,
CV 317-053
V.
CHRIS STEVERSON; JEFFERY DEAL;
RON BOWDOIN; BETTY RIDDLE;
ATHANIEL KING; JEROME DANIELS;
TOMMY BARRENTINE; and CHRIS
SCREWS,
Defendants.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants Ron Bowdoin, Betty
Riddle, and Chris Steverson's {^^Defendants'') Bill of Costs seeking
$11,365.89.
costs.
Plaintiff filed an objection to $2,812.30 of those
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's objection is
SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART.
On September 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action alleging
only state law claims arising out of his imprisonment at the Dodge
County Jail.
(See generally Compl., Doc. No. 1.)
The case
proceeded through discovery and on the last day for filing civil
motions Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
(Doc, Nos. 20, 21.)
The Court granted the motions
finding it lacked jurisdiction over this case because Plaintiff
plead only state law claims.
(Order of Oct. 18, 2018, Doc. No.
62, at 5.)
On November 8, 2018, Defendants submitted a Bill of Costs.
(Doc. No. 70.)
Specifically, those Defendants sought to recover
the following costs:
Fees for service of summons and subpoena . . . $365.00
Fees for printed or electronically recorded
transcripts necessarily obtained for use
in the case
$10,931.63
Fees for exemplification and the costs of making
copies of any material where the copies are
necessarily obtained for use in the case . . . $69.26
Total
$11,365.89
Plaintiff filed an objection to the Bill of Costs.
72.)
(Doc. No.
Plaintiff objects to the costs for ''Video Services" on
multiple depositions, to the fees for copies of the deposition
videos and exhibits, and the request for travel expenses of a court
reporter. Further, Plaintiff contends he is a "working-class man"
and the issuance of costs would impose significant financial
hardship on him.
(Id. at 4.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (d)
award costs to the prevailing party.
allov;s the Court to
The costs that may be taxed
against a non-prevailing party are defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 as
follows:
(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 disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making
copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily
obtained for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; and
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation
of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs
of special interpretation services under section 1828 of
this title.
The power to tax costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) is not an
expansive one; rather, ^^absent explicit statutory or contractual
authorization for the taxation of other [expenses], federal courts
are bound by the limitations set out in . . . 28 U.S.C. § 1920."
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 445
(1987).
Consequently, the Court may not tax any cost unless it
falls within one of the categories enumerated by the statute.
Id.
While the Court retains discretion to deny costs to a prevailing
party, the presumption is in favor of the award of costs. Arcadian
Fertilizer, L.P. v. MPW Indus. Servs., Inc., 249 F.3d 1293, 1296
(11th Cir. 2001).
The non-prevailing party bears the burden to demonstrate that
a cost is not taxable, unless the knowledge regarding the proposed
cost lies within the exclusive knowledge of the prevailing party.
Joseph V. Nichell^s Caribbean Cuisine, Inc., 950 F. Supp. 2d 1254,
1257-58
{S.D.
Fla.
2013).
While
the
burden
is
on
the
non-
prevailing party to show a cost is not taxable, the prevailing
party must still submit a request for costs that enables the court
to determine what costs were incurred and whether they may be
taxable.
Id.
Plaintiff objects to $2,231.25 in ''Video Services" fees for
video copies of depositions of Ronald Bowdoin, Chris Steverson,
Tommy Barrentine, Chris Screws, Jeffery Deal, Jerome Daniels,
Betty Riddle, Plaintiff John Dopson, and David Venable. Plaintiff
argues that the costs of obtaining these depositions by video were
not necessary expenses.
The Eleventh Circuit has squarely addressed this issue.
In
Morrison v. Reichhold Chems., Inc., 97 F.3d 460, 464-65 (11th Cir.
1996), the court held "when a party notices a deposition to be
recorded by nonstenographic means, or by both stenographic and
nonstenographic means, and no objection is raised at that time by
the
other
party
to
the
method
of
recordation . . . it
is
appropriate under § 1920 to award the cost of conducting the
deposition in the manner noticed."
Here, in seven of the nine
depositions taken by video it was Plaintiff who served the Notice
of Videotaped Depositions. (Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Obj. to Bill of
Costs, Doc. No. 74, Ex. A.)
For the other two depositions - John
Dopson and David Venable — Defendants' notice stated it would be
recorded by video.
Plaintiff did not object at the time.
4
Furthermore, Defendants reasonably believed that obtaining
copies of these videos was necessary at the time the depositions
were taken.
See Watson v. Lake Cnty., 492 F. App'x 991, 996-97
(11th Cir. 2012).
For seven of the depositions it was Plaintiff
who deemed a video deposition necessary.
Kolesar,
313
F.2d
835,
839-40
(5th
See United States v.
Cir.
1963)
(copies
of
depositions taken by opposing party are taxable as costs if the
depositions were necessary).
depositions
judgment.
to
respond
In fact. Plaintiff used those seven
to
Defendants'
motions
for
summary
(Doc. Nos. 43, 44.)
For Dopson, Defendants reasonably believed a video copy was
necessary because much of his testimony contradicted others.
Defendants needed a video copy for trial if the need to impeach
Dopson's testimony arose.
As to Venable, Defendants reasonably
believed a copy was necessary because Plaintiff listed him as
having relevant knowledge in his initial disclosures and Venable,
as Dopson's former attorney, turned out to have crucial knowledge
about the case.
concerned
the
deposition.
In fact, one of Defendants' motions in limine
exclusion
of
(Doc. No. 25.)
Venable's
testimony
based
on
his
Therefore, the Court overrules
Plaintiff's objections to the ''Video Services" costs.
Next, Plaintiff objects to the fees for "B/W Exhibits copied
scanned hyperlinked" totaling $170.00.
These costs were charged
for providing copies of deposition exhibits.
Such costs are
recoverable under § 1920.
See Denton v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.^
645 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1227 (N.D. Ga. 2009); 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection to these costs is overruled.
Plaintiff's last objection is to the "^^Miscellaneous Travel
Expenses" totaling $410.55 for the Deposition of Reba Inez Nelson.
Defendants clarified that such expenses were incurred for a court
reporter, an essential component of a deposition.
The court
reporter, however, already charged a $157.50 appearance fee.
The
$410.55 in additional travel expenses are not taxable because they
are not directly related to the preparation of the transcript.
See Price v. United Techs. Corp., 2001 WL 36085163, at *2 (S.D.
Fla. July 27, 2001) (finding a court reporter's appearance fee is
recoverable under § 1920(2), but not additional travel expenses);
see also Pushko v. Klebener, 2009 WL 9988121, at *4 (M.D. Fla.
Dec. 8, 2009) (disallowing court reporter travel expenses).
For
the same reasons, the mileage costs for the videographer of
Dopson's and Venable's depositions are not taxable.
Plaintiff's
objection
$410.55
is
therefore
sustained
as
to
the
in
^^Miscellaneous Travel Expenses" and the $180.75 in mileage fees.
Finally, Plaintiff contends his financial status should be
considered in determining the award of costs.
See Chapman v. AI
Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1039 (11th Cir. 2000).
To be considered,
however, a party must submit "substantial documentation of a true
inability to pay."
Id.
Plaintiff has simply stated he is a
^^working-class man" with little means to pay.
Thus, there is no
evidence for the Court to consider his financial status.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's objections to Defendants'
Bill of Costs (doc. no. 70) are OVERRULED IN PART AND SUSTAINED IN
PART.
The Court finds $410.55 in court reporter travel expenses
and $180.75 in videographer mileage are not taxable.
DIRECTED
to
tax
costs
in
the
amount
of
The Clerk is
$10,774.59
against
Plaintiff.
ORDER
ENTERED
at
Augusta,
Georgia,
this
day
December, 2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG
of
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?