Davis v. Jung et al

Filing 112

MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 6/21/2011.Mailed notice(sct, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
LACEY DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OFFICER J. JUNG, STAR NO 13387,
OFFICER M. V. SCHALLER, STAR
NO. 19188, and the CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

09 C 663

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case comes before the Court on the bill of costs of Defendants City of
Chicago and Chicago Police Officers J. Jung and M. Schaller (collectively,
“Defendants”). For the reasons stated below, this Court awards costs in the amount of
$6,673.06 to Defendants.
BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2009, Plaintiff Lacey Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against
Defendants, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state laws. On April
15, 2011, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on all
claims. On May 13, 2011, Defendants filed a bill of costs, seeking to recover a total of
$7,830.56. Specifically, Defendants sought to recover:
•

$24.00 for exemplification and copies of papers;

•

$647.00 for subpoena service fees;

•

$2,558.50 for deposition costs;

•

$1,440.00 for transcripts from Plaintiff’s criminal proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Cook County;

•

$1,261.82 for copies of various records; and

•

$1,899.24 for other costs, including demonstrative exhibits, a dry erase
board, marker, and eraser, and an audio recording.

On May 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed an objection. Defendants’ bill of costs and Plaintiff’s
objection are currently before this Court.
LEGAL STANDARD
A prevailing party may recover costs other than attorney’s fees. Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(d)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the prevailing party may recover: (1) fees of
the clerk and marshal; (2) fees for transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) fees for printing and witnesses; (4) fees for exemplification and the costs of making
copies of any materials for use in the case; (5) docket fees; and (6) compensation of
court appointed exerts and interpreters.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ recovery of the following: (1) a $10 check writing
fee (per check) associated with the service of process of five witnesses; (2) half of the
costs of the criminal court transcripts; (3) the cost of the dry erase board, marker, and
eraser; and (4) the cost of the demonstrative exhibits.
-2-

First, Plaintiff objects to the $10 check writing fee (per check) associated with
the service of process of five witnesses. Defendants now agree to bear the check
writing fees, so the total subpoena service fees are reduced by $50.00 to $597.00.
Second, Plaintiff objects to half of the costs of the criminal court transcripts,
stating that the parties agreed to evenly share the costs. Plaintiff also claims that she
paid her share of the costs. In her objection, Plaintiff stated that she would provide a
copy of the check to the Court, but has failed to do so. Defendants acknowledge that
the parties agreed to evenly share the costs and claim that Plaintiff only paid $273.00.
Since both parties agree that Plaintiff paid at least $273.00 for the transcripts, the Court
will reduce the total cost of the transcripts by half (pursuant to the parties’ agreement
to share the costs) and then further reduce the costs by $273.00. Accordingly, this
Court reduces the transcript costs to $447.00 ($1,440.00 divided by two and minus
$273.00).
Third, Plaintiff objects to the cost of the dry erase board, marker, and eraser.
Defendants agree to withdraw this request from their bill of costs. Accordingly, this
Court reduces the costs for other items by $114.50 to $1,784.74.
Finally, Plaintiff objects to the cost of the demonstrative exhibits, which
consisted of seven enlarged photos. Plaintiff does not contest Defendants’ need to
present the enlarged photos at trial; rather, Plaintiff argues that Defendants paid an
unreasonably high amount for the enlargements. With a discount, each enlargement
-3-

cost Defendants approximately $240.00.

Plaintiff contends she obtained similar

enlargements for $129.99. The prevailing party may recover the cost of preparing
demonstrative exhibits, such as an enlarged photo, if the exhibit was “necessarily
obtained for use in the case.” Cefalu v. Village of Elk Grove, 211 F.3d 416, 427-28 (7th
Cir. 2000) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1920(4)). Here, Plaintiff does not dispute that the
enlarged photos were necessary, as they vividly displayed key information to the jury,
including the precise location of the disputed events, the injury Plaintiff caused to
Officer Jung, and Plaintiff’s appearance shortly after her arrest. Indeed, Plaintiff’s
counsel understood the utility of the enlarged photos as he used Defendants’ exhibits
multiple times during the trial. Even though Defendants paid more than Plaintiff for the
enlarged photos, Defendants are entitled to recover the costs paid since the exhibits
were necessarily obtained for use in the case.1 Moreover, other courts have awarded
similar costs for enlarged photos. See, e.g., Serwatka v. City of Chi., No. 08 C 5616,
2011 WL 2038725, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2011) (awarding approximately $244.00
for each enlarged photo); Telular Corp. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. 01 C 431, 2006
WL 1722375, at *7 (N.D. Ill. June 16, 2006) (awarding $260.00 for each enlarged photo
of a certain size).

1

While Defendants include their request for the costs of the enlarged photos in a category
titled “Other Costs,” Defendants may recover the costs as fees for exemplification under Section
1920(4). See Serwatka v. City of Chi., No. 08 C 5616, 2011 WL 2038725, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 24,
2011).
-4-

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court awards costs in the amount of $6,673.06 to
Defendants.

Charles P. Kocoras
United States District Judge
Dated:

June 21, 2011

-5-