Phillips v. Allen et al

Filing 118

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 5/6/2011: Before the Court is Defendants' amended bill of costs 117 . For the reasons stated below, the Court awards Defendants $7,319.56 in costs. [For further details see written opinion.] Mailed notice (hp, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Robert M. Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

07 C 666

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

5/6/2011

Phillips v. Allen et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Before the Court is Defendants’ amended bill of costs [117]. For the reasons stated below, the Court awards
Defendants $7,319.56 in costs.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Following entry of judgment in their favor, Defendants submitted a bill of costs [101] pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54(d). Plaintiff did not file an objection to the original bill of costs. Nevertheless, the Court
scrutinized the amounts sought by Defendants and ordered Defendants to provide additional back-up
documentation that would permit the Court to fully consider the amounts requested [116]. The order requesting
additional documentation also allowed Plaintiff until 2/24/2011 to submit any objections to the amended bill of
costs.
Defendants filed their amended bill of costs on 2/10/2011 [117], and Plaintiff filed no objection. Upon careful
consideration of Defendants’ amended bill of costs, the Court awards Defendants the full amount requested:
$7,319.56.
I.

Legal Standards

Rule 54(d)(1) provides that “costs – other than attorney’s fees – should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The rule “provides a presumption that the losing party will pay costs but grants the court
discretion to direct otherwise.” Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2006). However, the
Seventh Circuit recognizes “only two situations in which the denial of costs might be warranted: the first
involves misconduct of the party seeking costs, and the second involves a pragmatic exercise of discretion to
deny or reduce a costs order if the losing party is indigent.” Mother & Father v. Cassidy, 338 F.3d 704, 708 (7th
Cir. 2003); see also Rivera, 469 F.3d at 634-35. Taxing costs against the non-prevailing party requires two
inquiries: (1) whether the cost is recoverable; and (2) whether the amount assessed is reasonable. See Majeske
v. City of Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 824 (7th Cir. 2000). The list of recoverable costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920
includes (1) fees of the clerk and marshal, (2) fees for transcripts, (3) witness fees and expenses, (4) fees for
copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case, (5) docket fees, and (6) compensation for court07C3982 Harris vs. City of Chicago

Page 1 of 3

STATEMENT
appointed experts and interpreters. See Republic Tobacco Co. v. N. Atl. Trading Co., Inc., 481 F.3d 442, 447 (7th
Cir. 2007).
II.

Analysis
A.

Court Reporting and Transcription Fees – 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2)

First, Defendants seek $6,208.65 in court reporting fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). The Court awards
deposition charges if the deposition appears reasonably necessary in light of the facts known at the time of the
deposition. See Little v. Mitsubishi Motors N. Am., Inc., 514 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Mother
& Father, 338 F.3d at 708. Under Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 54.1(b), the costs of a transcript shall
not exceed the regular copy rate established by the Judicial Conference of the United States. See N.D. Ill. L.R.
54.1(b).
The applicable rates pursuant to the Judicial Conference for depositions and trials conducted after February 28,
2003, but before November 1, 2007, are $3.30 per page for ordinary transcripts, $4.40 per page for expedited
transcripts, and $5.50 for daily transcripts. See Gyrion v. City of Chicago, 454 F. Supp. 2d 725, 726 (N.D. Ill.
2006). For depositions and trials conducted after November 1, 2007, the applicable Judicial Conference rates
are $3.65 per page for ordinary transcripts, $4.25 per page for fourteen day transcripts, $4.85 per page for seven
day transcripts, $6.05 per page for daily transcripts, and $7.25 per page for hourly transcripts. See
www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/CLERKS_OFFICE/CrtReporter/trnscrpt.htm. Reasonable attendance fees also are
recoverable under Section 1920(2). See, e.g., Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1002 (7th Cir. 1998) (“As for the
deposition attendance fees charged by the court reporter, we have previously held that even though these fees
are not specifically mentioned in the statute, the district court may award them in its discretion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1920(2)”); Finchum v. Ford Motor Co., 57 F.3d 526, 534 (7th Cir. 1995) (same).
The Court has scrutinized the supporting materials (including invoices) attached to Defendants’ amended bill of
costs and finds that the amounts requested are supported. For each transcript, Defendants now provide the date,
the type of transcript (for example, original versus copy transcripts and normal versus accelerated delivery), the
cost per page, and the number of pages. With this information, the Court is able to now ascertain that all the
charges are appropriate.
B.

Witness Fees and Expenses – 28 U.S.C. § 1920(3)

Next, Defendants seek $917.71 in costs associated witness fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(3) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1821. See Majeske, 218 F.3d at 825-26 (“Collectively, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920(3) authorize the award
of costs to reimburse witnesses for their reasonable travel and lodging expenses”). Section 1821 provides for
a per diem of $40 per day for attendance at a court proceeding or deposition. Defendants ask for $64.70 for
Elizabeth Graham, $51.09 for Ruby Graham, $51.92 for Kellyn Coakley, and $750 for William T. Gaut.
Defendants have provided the subpoenas for Elizabeth Graham, Ruby Graham, and Kellyn Coakley (which lists
each of their addresses) and copies of the slips showing the total payment to each witness. The bill of costs also
specifies how much of each of those payments was for mileage ($24.70 for Elizabeth Graham, for travel from
Forest Park, Illinois; $11.09 for Ruby Graham, for travel from Niles, Illinois; and $11.92 for Kelly Coakley, for
travel within Chicago, Illinois). For Gaut, Defendants attach a W-9 tax form that shows Gaut’s address in
Naples, Florida and that $750 was paid to him. Each of the amounts requested under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(3) is
reasonable; the Court awards each of the amounts requested.

07C3982 Harris vs. City of Chicago

Page 2 of 3

STATEMENT
C.

Fees for Exemplification and Copies – 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4)

Next, Defendants seek $193.20 in photocopying and exemplification costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4),
which allows a judge to tax as costs “[f]ees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use
in the case.” See Tchemkou v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir. 2008). Courts interpret this section to mean
that photocopying charges for discovery and court copies are recoverable, but charges for copies made for
attorney convenience are not. See Kulumani v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass’n, 224 F.3d 681, 685 (7th Cir. 2000);
McIlveen v. Stone Container Corp., 910 F.2d 1581, 1584 (7th Cir. 1990). Under Section 1920(4), the prevailing
party is “not required to submit a bill of costs containing a description so detailed as to make it impossible
economically to recover photocopying costs.” Northbrook Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Proctor & Gamble, 924
F.2d 633, 643 (7th Cir. 1991). Instead, the prevailing party need only provide the best breakdown obtainable
from the records. See id.
In their original bill of costs, Defendants provided the following as a description of their photocopying costs:
Copying Expenses:
Document Production (Hard Copy)
- Document Bates Stamped 1932 / 1pg. @ .$10 ...... $193.20
A charge of $0.10 per copy is within the range of $0.10 to $0.20 per page that courts have found to be reasonable
in this district. See, e.g., Harkins v. Riverboat Serv., Inc., 286 F. Supp. 2d 976, 982 (N.D. Ill. 2003); see also
Helzing v. Loyola Univ. of Chicago,, 2004 WL 2608287, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2004); Vardon Golf Co., Inc.
v. Karsten Mfg. Corp., 2003 WL 1720066, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2003); Figueroa v. City of Chicago, 2000
WL 1036019, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2000). Defendants’ description of what actually was copied is vague, but
because the materials copied were apparently “Bates Stamped,” the Court infers they were discovery materials
necessary for use by Defendants in the case. Because Defendants’ request for photocopying fees is reasonable
and recoverable (see Majeske, 218 F.3d at 824), the Court awards $193.20 under Section 1920(4).
III.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), the Court awards Defendants costs in the amount
of $7,319.56 as the prevailing party in this action.

07C3982 Harris vs. City of Chicago

Page 3 of 3