Lalowski v. Corithian Schools Inc. et al

Filing 132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 7/18/2013:Mailed notice(wp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL LALOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10 C 1928
v.

Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

CORINTHIAN SCHOOLS, INC. and
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES, INC.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Daniel Lalowski’s Bill of
Costs. For the reasons stated herein, the Court awards Plaintiff
the sum of $3,207.95 in costs.
I.

BACKGROUND

After a two-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of
Plaintiff

Daniel

Lalowski

(hereinafter,

the

“Plaintiff”

or

“Lalowski”) on his Title IX retaliation claim against Defendants
Corinthian

Schools,

Inc.

and

Corinthian

Colleges,

Inc.

(hereinafter, collectively, the “Defendants” or “Corinthian”).
On April 26, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiff’s Motion for Post-Verdict Relief.

On May 23, 2013,

Plaintiff filed his Bill of Costs pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).

The Court granted Defendants until

June 27, 2013 to object to the reasonableness of those costs, but
Defendants chose not to do so.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that,
“costs—other

than

prevailing party.”

attorneys’

fees—should

FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1).

be

allowed

to

the

However, it is well

established that a “district court may not tax costs under
Rule 54(d) unless a federal statute authorizes an award of those
costs.”

Republic Tobacco Co. v. N. Atl. Trading Co., Inc., 481

F.3d 442, 447 (7th Cir. 2007).

The list of recoverable costs

authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 include:
(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
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

(6)

Compensation
of
court
appointed
experts,
compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees,
expenses, and costs of special interpretation
services. . . .

disbursements

for

printing

and

. . . ; [and]

28 U.S.C. § 1920.
However, “a cost must be both reasonable and necessary to
the litigation for a prevailing party to recover it.”
- 2 -

Little v.

Mitsubishi Motors N. Am., 514 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 2008).
“[A] party seeking an award of costs carries the burden of
showing that the requested costs were necessarily incurred and
reasonable.”

Trs. of the Chi. Plastering Inst. Pension Trust v.

Cork Plastering Co., 570 F.3d 890, 906 (7th Cir. 2009).

After

the prevailing party establishes that the particular costs should
be

allowed,

“the

losing

party

then

bears

the

burden

of

affirmatively showing that the taxed costs are not appropriate.”
Se-Kure

Controls,

F.Supp.2d

939,

Inc.

944

v.

(N.D.

Vanguard
Ill.

Prods.

2012)

Grp.,

Inc.,

(citations

873

omitted).

Ultimately, it is within the Court’s discretion on whether to
award costs.

Id.
III.

Plaintiff
$3,207.95.

seeks

an

ANALYSIS

award

of

costs

in

the

amount

of

He seeks $350.00 in fees from of the Clerk; $365.00

in fees for

service

of

summons

and

subpoena;

$2,086.15 in

transcript fees; $237.00 for fees for witnesses; and $169.80 for
copy costs.
A.

Fees from the Clerk

Plaintiff seeks $350.00 in fees of the Clerk.
reflects Plaintiff’s filing fee.

See ECF No. 4.

This amount

The Court finds

this permissible pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1) and accordingly
awards the fee.

- 3 -

B.

Fees for Service of Summons and Subpoena

Plaintiff seeks $365.00 in fees for service of summons and
subpoenas.

He has provided invoices for the subpoenas of Amber

Stenbeck, Stanley Lofton, and Jennifer Paugh. A prevailing party
is entitled to costs for service of subpoenas pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1920(1) so long as such subpoenas are both “reasonable
and necessary” to the case.
(7th

Cir.

1993).

reasonableness

of

Soler v. Waite, 989 F.2d 251, 255

Defendants
such

have

objected

and

costs,

not

to

the

the

Court

finds

the

documentation provided sufficient to warrant an award.

See,

e.g., Bratton v. Thomas Law Firm, PC, --- F.Supp.2d ---, No.1:12CV-169-TLS, 2013 WL 1891364 at *12 (N.D. Ind. May 3, 2013)
(finding a $75 fee for formal service of process was both
reasonable and necessary to the litigation).
C.

Transcript Fees

Plaintiff seeks $2,086.15 in transcript fees.

He has

provided invoices which reflect the aforementioned amount. Under
28

U.S.C.

§

1920(2),

the

Court

is

permitted

to

award

the

prevailing party costs for the disbursements of transcripts that
are

“necessarily

obtained

for

use

in

the

case.”

Trading

Technology Intern., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 750 F.Supp.2d 962, 975
(N.D.

Ill.

2010).

However,

recovery

is

limited

by

Local

Rule 54.1(b) and the copy rate established by the Judicial

- 4 -

Conference of the United States at the time the deposition was
taken. See L.R. 54.1(b). After reviewing the invoices Plaintiff
has submitted, the Court finds the fees permissible.

As such,

the Court awards $2,086.15 in transcript fees.
D.

Witness Fees

Plaintiff seeks $237.00 in witness fees.
Jeffrey
presence
§

Jarmes,

Michelle

at trial

1821(b),

a

and

witness

McCormack,

and

depositions.
shall

be

Zaida

Pursuant

paid

compensation for mileage traveled.

The fees are for

an

Portalatin’s
to

28

attendance

U.S.C.

fee

and

See, Hernandez-Martinez v.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 11 C 4990, 2013 WL 2384251 at *4
(N.D. Ill. May 30, 2013).

Such costs are recoverable for a

prevailing party under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

Plaintiff has provided

copies of the checks issued to all three witnesses.

The Court

finds this documentation sufficient and awards these costs.
E.

Copy Costs

Plaintiff seeks $169.80 in copying costs.

He provides a

list of those documents for which he seeks compensation and
claims the rate paid was $.15 per page.

Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1920(4), the Court may award photocopy costs only for “copies
of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case.”
§ 1920(4).

28 U.S.C.

After reviewing Plaintiff’s documentation the Court

finds it both sufficient and reasonable and awards such costs.

- 5 -

See Druckzentrum Harry Jung GmbH & Co. KG v. Motorola, Inc.,
No. 09-CV-7231, 2013 WL 147014 at *7 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2013)
(finding

an

award

of

copying

costs

appropriate

where

the

prevailing party identified the “nature of each document copied,
the number of copies of each document prepared, the copying cost
per page, and the total copying cost.”).
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court awards Plaintiff
costs in the amount of $3,207.95.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Date: July 18, 2013

- 6 -