James v. Williams, Star No. 7073 et al
Filing
68
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Arlander Keys on 11/5/2012. Mailed notice(ac, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY JAMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
P.O. Noble Williams, Star
#7073, P.O. T. Moragne, STAR
#19052, individually, and
THE CITY OF CHICAGO
Defendants.
)
)
)
) Case No. 10 C 5350
)
) Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Anthony James, (“Plaintiff”) sued the City of Chicago and
two of its police officers, alleging that on August 25, 2008 the
Defendants falsely arrested him and caused a malicious
prosecution.
After a three-day jury trial, on February 24, 2012
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendants against
the Plaintiff.
On March 23, 2012, the Defendants filed their
bill of costs seeking to recover $7,301.56.
That same day, Mr.
James filed a motion seeking a new trial under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(a).
On August 15, 2012, this Court issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new
trial, but granting him time to file his response to Defendants’
Bill of Costs.
Defendants seek recovery for the following costs: 1) $220 in
fees for service of the summons and subpoena; 2) $3,301.38 for
deposition costs; 3) $140 for witness fees; 4) $3,506.87 for
exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained; and 4)
$133.31 for other itemized costs.
Plaintiff objects to the
Defendants’ requests for costs totaling $7,301.56.
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).
Despite the use of the word “should,” the decision to
award costs “is firmly within the district court’s discretion.”
Chamberlain Manufacturing Corp. v. Maremont Corp., No. 92-C-0356,
1995 WL 769782, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 1995)(citing O.K. Sand
& Gravel, Inc. v. Martin Marietta Technologies, Inc., 36 F.3d
565, 571 (7th Cir. 1994)).
The Rule “provides a presumption that
the losing party will pay costs but grants the court discretion
to direct otherwise.”
634 (7th Cir.2006).
Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631,
See also Benuzzi v. Board of Education of
City of Chicago, No. 09 C 3510, 2010 WL 3038101, at *1 (N.D. Ill.
July 30, 2010)(“There is a strong presumption that prevailing
parties are entitled to an award of costs, as permitted by
statute.”)(citing Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co., 411 F.3d
854, 864 (7th Cir. 2005)).
Generally, costs are denied only when
a prevailing party has engaged in misconduct worthy of a penalty
or when the losing party is unable to pay.
Benuzzi, 2010 WL
3038101, at *1 (citing Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126
F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997)); Rivera, 469 F.3d at 634-35.
also Mother & Father v. Cassidy, 338 F.3d 704, 708 (7th Cir.
2
See
2003)(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.”).
As the prevailing party, the Defendants are entitled to
costs under the Rule.
Indeed, Mr. James does not dispute that
the defendants prevailed in this action.
He does, however,
challenge the deposition transcript costs, as well as the
exemplification and copies costs requested by the Defendants.
He
argues the costs are excessive and not proper under 28 U.S.C.
§1920.
The Defendants seek to recover $3,301.38 in deposition and
court reporting-related expenses, including $809.45 for Anthony
James’ deposition; $372.55 for Crystalyn Jones’ deposition;
$252.05 ($125 fee for the 4/13/11 appearance plus $127.05) for
Takia Rodgers’ deposition; $449.26 ($414.26 plus $35 for the etranscript file) for Laura Dunaj’s deposition; and $360.52
($325.52 plus $35 for the e-transcript file) for Robert
Stegmiller’s deposition.
Local Rule 54.1 provides that “[s]ubject to the provisions
of Fed. R, Civ. P. 54(d), the expense of any previaling party in
necessarily obtaining all or any part of a transcript for use in
a case . . . shall be taxable as costs against the adverse party.
3
. . . [T]he costs of the transcript or deposition shall not
exceed the regular copy rate as established by the Judicial
Conference of the United States and in effect at the time the
transcript or deposition was filed.”
The Defendants seek reimbursement of costs associated with
the depositions of the plaintiff, his witnesses, and the named
defendants.
All of these depositions were necessarily obtained
for use in the case.
However, the cost of a transcript shall not
exceed the regular copy rate established by the Judicial
Conference ($3.65).
Reasonable court reporter attendance fees
are also recoverable, yet the fee may be taxed as costs only to
the extent that the fee, when added to the per page rate charged
for the deposition transcript, does not make the total charge per
page exceed the applicable page rate.
Higbee v. Sentry Ins. Co.,
2004 WL 1323633, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2004.)
Finally, costs
associated with delivering, shipping, or handling are not
recoverable because they are considered ordinary business
expenses.
See Harkins v. Riverboat Servs., Inc., 286 F. Supp. 2d
976, 981 (N.D. Ill. 2003.)
Some of the invoices produced by
Defendants herein demonstrate costs that, when totaled, exceed
the amount recoverable under the applicable law.
For instance, Anthony James’ deposition consisted of
167 pages.
Court reporter Lorie E. Mayer charged $3.35 per page
as well as an appearance fees totaling $245.00.
4
When the
appearance and delivery fees are added to the per page rate
charged, the total charge per page equals $4.85, exceeding the
$3.65 maximum established by the Judicial Conference.
As a
result, Defendants may only recover $3.65 per page for James’s
deposition, which for 167 pages totals $609.55.
Higbee, 2004 WL
1323633, at *2.
Accordingly, Defendants may only recover $609.55 for
Anthony James’s deposition, $229.95 for Crystalyn Jones’
deposition, $120.45 for Takia Rodgers’ deposition, $299.30 for
Laura Dunaj’s deposition and $233.60 for Robert Stegmiller’s
deposition.
The difference between the amount Defendants’ seek
for these depositions and the amount allowed under law is
$750.98.
All together, Defendants are entitled to recover only
$2,550.40 for deposition and transcript fees instead of the
$3,301.38 originally requested.
Lastly, the defendants seek to recover $3,506.87 in
exemplification and copies, of which Plaintiff objects to
$2,909.78.
Although Plaintiff argues that majority of the copies
were unnecessary or duplicative, the Court finds Defendants’
costs associated to items “necessarily obtained” in this case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1920 reasonable - except for one.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ counsel was aware of the
courtroom technology available during trial for the display of
exhibits, but instead chose to spend over one thousand dollars
5
($1,050) on “Oversize Color Printing/Foam Core Mounting” to
produce blow-ups.
The Court agrees with the sound reasoning
Plaintiff offers, and, therefore, deducts $1,050 from Defendants’
costs.
Accordingly, of the $3,505.87 Defendants seeks in
exemplification and copy costs, the Court’s deduction entitles
them to recover $2,456.87.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the Defendants’ Bill of
Costs [54] is allowed, as modified in this opinion.
The
Defendants are awarded costs in the amount of $5,500.58.
Date: November 5, 2012
E N T E R E D:
______________________________
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARLANDER KEYS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
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?