Bobak Sausage Company v. A&J Seven Bridges Inc et al
Filing
92
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 5/31/2011: Following entry of judgment in its favor, on April 6, 2011, Defendants submitted a bill of costs 90 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). On April 12, 2011, the C ourt took the bill of costs under advisement and gave Plaintiff until April 26, 2011, to object. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the bill of costs. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendants' request for costs 90 and awards Defendants $2,829.00 in costs. Mailed notice. [For further details see written opinion.] (kj, )
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 4718
CASE
TITLE
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
DATE
5/31/2011
Bobak Sausage Company vs. A.&J Seven Bridges, Inc., et al.
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Following entry of judgment in its favor, on April 6, 2011, Defendants submitted a bill of costs [90] pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). On April 12, 2011, the Court took the bill of costs under advisement and
gave Plaintiff until April 26, 2011, to object. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the bill of costs. For the
reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendants’ request for costs [90] and awards Defendants $2,829.00 in
costs.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
STATEMENT
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 courtappointed experts and interpreters. See Republic Tobacco Co. v. N. Atl. Trading Co., Inc., 481 F.3d 442, 447 (7th
Cir. 2007). Plaintiff claims $2,829.00 in costs–$2,252.70 for fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the
transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case and $576.80 for exemplification and copies of papers
necessarily obtained for use in the case.
A.
Court Reporting and Transcription Fees – 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2)
First, Defendants seek $2,252.70 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).
07C4718 Bobak Sausage Company vs. A.&J Seven Bridges, Inc., et al.
Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT
The Court has reviewed the supporting materials (including invoices) attached to Defendants’ bill of costs and
finds that the amounts requested are reasonable. Furthermore, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to object
to the costs sought by Defendants. Therefore, the Court awards Defendants $2,252.70 in court reporting fees.
C.
Fees for Exemplification and Copies – 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4)
Next, Defendants seek $576.80 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.
The Court has reviewed the supporting materials (including invoices) attached to Defendants’ bill of costs and
finds that the amounts requested are reasonable. Furthermore, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to object
to the costs sought by Defendants. Therefore, the Court awards Defendants $576.80 in photocopying and
exemplification costs under Section 1920(4).
07C4718 Bobak Sausage Company vs. A.&J Seven Bridges, Inc., et al.
Page 2 of 2
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?