Heneghan v. City of Chicago Aviation Police Dept. et al
Filing
187
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 10/3/2011: Defendants' Bill of Costs is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is liable to Defendants in the amount of $11,346.66.Mailed notice(wp, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Harry D. Leinenweber
CASE NUMBER
09 C 759
CASE
TITLE
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
DATE
10/3/2011
Heneghan vs. City of Chicago, et al.
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Defendants’ Bill of Costs is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is liable to Defendants in the amount
of $11,346.66.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
STATEMENT
On July 21, 2011, this Court entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Defendants Donald Wojcik
and the City of Chicago in Plaintiff’s sexual harassment lawsuit. Defendants now seek a total award of
$11,411.26 in costs, of which $11,048.29 is for the City and $362.97 is for Wojcik.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, other than attorney’s fees,
which are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. These recoverable costs include: (1) fees of the clerk; (2) fees for
transcripts; (3) fees for printing and witnesses; and (4) fees for copies of papers necessarily obtained for use
in the case. There is a strong presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. Weeks v.
Samsung Heavy Indust. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997). However, district courts have wide discretion
in determining what constitutes taxable costs. Deimer v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods, Inc., 58 F.3d 341, 345
(7th Cir. 1995). The Court must closely scrutinize such expenses, and Defendants are entitled to recover
costs only if they are allowable under § 1920 and reasonable in amount and necessity to the litigation.
Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Invest. Servs. Inc. v. Sekulovski, No. 07 C 5369, 2010 WL 145785, at * 8
(N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2010) (internal citations omitted).
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff challenges Wojcik’s recovery of costs because neither he nor his
attorney submitted a sworn affidavit detailing his costs, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1924. The City’s attorney,
however, has submitted such an affidavit, and the City represents that it is paying Wojcik’s costs. Given that
assertion, the affidavit from the City’s attorney is sufficient. Plaintiff also challenges Wojcik’s submission of
copies of checks rather than detailed invoices, but the Court finds the documentation submitted sufficient.
The Court will consider each category of requested costs.
Photocopying Costs
Fees for copies that are necessarily obtained for use in the case are recoverable. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).
This means that photocopying charges made for discovery and court copies are recoverable, but those made
for the convenience of the lawyer are not. See Neuros Co., Ltd. v. KTurbo, Inc., No. 08 C 5939, 2011 WL
09C759 Heneghan vs. City of Chicago, et al.
Page 1 of 3
STATEMENT
3841683, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2011). Such documents need not be introduced at trial. M.T. Bonk Co. v.
Milton Bradley Co., 945 F.2d 1404, 1410 (7th Cir. 1991).
The City requests $2,834.60 and Wojcik $90.53 in photocopying costs. This amount is for the
expense of reproducing pleadings and motions, discovery, and trial exhibits. The City seeks to recover at a
rate of $0.20 per page for in-house black-and-white copying, and $1.00 per page for in-house color copying.
The Court agrees with the City that it may appropriately recover the cost of one copy of each pleading or
motion filed in the case, as well as one copy of each discovery document. While Plaintiff challenges
Defendants’ descriptions of the documents as vague, the City has provided a description of each document,
the number of pages, and the cost per page. The City taxed for more than one copy only of its trial exhibits
and a deposition transcript used at trial, and explained why the copies were needed. The City’s photocopying
costs appear reasonable.
Plaintiff additionally challenges the rate of $0.20 per page for black-and-white copies and $1.00 per
page for color copies, but courts within this district have previously found such fees to be reasonable. See,
e.g., Sekulovski, 2010 WL 145785, at * 11. Vito & Nick’s, Inc. v. Barraco, No. 05 C 2764, 2008 WL
4594347, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2008). Wojcik’s costs likewise appear reasonable, so Defendants may
recover their photocopying costs. In sum, then, Defendants may recover $2,925.13 in photocopying costs.
Deposition Costs
Next, the City seeks to recover deposition costs in the amount of $8,213.69 for depositions that it
contends were reasonable and necessary in this case. Courts may award deposition costs, including the costs
of transcripts and reasonable appearance fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2); see Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998,
1002 (7th Cir. 1998). A deposition need not be used at summary judgment or at trial in order for the Court to
find that it was necessary. Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 455 (7th Cir. 1998).
The City seeks to recover transcript costs of a maximum of $3.65 per page, which is the maximum
rate set by the Judicial Conference of the United States. See Maximum Transcript Rates,
http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/CLERKS_OFFICE/CrtReporter/trnscrpt.htm (last visited Sept. 15, 2011).
These costs are reasonable. Further, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the City should not be able to
recover for certain depositions because they were not used to present evidence to the Court. These potential
witnesses, Curtis Booker, Sharon Dancy, Michelle Shumaker, and Esperanza Mora, were identified by the
Plaintiff in her initial disclosures as witnesses who would support her claim. It was reasonable for the City to
depose them, and the costs are recoverable.
Plaintiff also argues that the City should not be able to recover $115 for the shipping or delivery of
transcripts. Although the Court has discretion to award such fees, see Finchum v. Ford Motor Co., 57 F.3d
526, 534 (7th Cir. 1995), it has repeatedly held that shipping and delivery fees constitute an ordinary business
expense, and as such will not award them in this case. See Alcazar-Anselmo v. City of Chicago, No. 07 C
5246, 2011 WL 3236024, at *9 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2011). However, the Court calculates only $61 in
disallowable shipping/delivery fees.
Plaintiff also challenges the City’s request of $14.55 for an expedited transcript of proceedings shortly
before trial in which the Court denied Defendants’ motion to reconsider a previous ruling and reopen
discovery. The Court will allow the City to recover the standard cost for a transcript of this ruling, which
amounts to $10.95.
In sum, then, the City is entitled to recover $8,149.09 in deposition costs.
Subpoena and Witness Fees
Wojcik seeks to recover $272.44 in process server and witness fees. Fees for witnesses are
recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(3). A witness must be paid $40 per day for each day’s attendance at
09C759 Heneghan vs. City of Chicago, et al.
Page 2 of 3
STATEMENT
court. 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b). Wojcik seeks to recover $175 in witness fees for seven witnesses. Wojcik also
seeks to recover the costs of subpoenas served on trial witnesses via U.S. Mail. Wojcik served seven
witnesses via U.S. mail for a total of $97.44. Prevailing parties may recover service costs that do not exceed
the marshal’s fees, no matter how service is effectuated. Collins v. Gorman, 96 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir.
1996). The allowable cost for service of process by the marshal is $55 per hour plus expenses. 28 C.F.R. §
0.114(a)(3). As such, these costs are recoverable in the amount of $272.44.
In sum, Defendants’ Bill of Costs is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is liable to
Defendants in the amount of $11,346.66.
09C759 Heneghan vs. City of Chicago, et al.
Page 3 of 3
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?