Rainey v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Filing
102
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 11/18/2013: Defendant is awarded the sum of $2,613.20 in costs.Mailed notice(wp, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TOMMY RAINEY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 11 C 2594
v.
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION
DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO,
Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Bill of Costs.
For the
reasons stated herein, Defendant is awarded the sum of $2,613.20 in
costs.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Tommy Rainey, proceeding pro se, filed this action
against his employer and brought claims under Title VII and 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.
The Court granted Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.
See, ECF Nos. 67, 98.
Defendant filed this Bill of Costs and asks for the sum of
$3,048.24.
Plaintiff has not filed a response.
II.
ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides that a prevailing
party should be able to recover its costs, other than attorneys’
fees, from the other party.
FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1).
The Court
“must determine that the expenses are allowable cost items and that
the costs are reasonable, both in amount and necessity to the
litigation.”
Weihaupt v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 419, 430 (7th
Cir. 1989).
This 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).
Defendant seeks to recover $1,881.20 spent on transcript and
court reporter fees.
These fees are recoverable pursuant to Local
Rule 54.1(b), as long as the rates conform to the rates established
by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
The court
reporters charged $0.90 per page for transcript copies and $3.65
per page for originals.
the Judicial Conference.
Those rates do not exceed the rate set by
See, http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/
clerksoffice/CLERKS_OFFICE/CrtReporter/trnscrpt.htm. In addition,
the transcripts were all reasonably necessary to the litigation
because they were used in the summary judgment briefing. This cost
is recoverable.
Defendant requests $75.00 for the money it spent subpoenaing
medical records.
This expense was reasonably necessary to the
litigation because Plaintiff sought medical treatment as a result
of the incidents alleged in the complaint.
See, Finchum v. Ford
Motor Co., 57 F.3d 526, 534 (7th Cir. 1995) (costs for medical
records are “clearly allowable”).
This expense is recoverable.
- 2 -
Defendant
necessary
to
Defendant’s
asks
for
the
litigation
costs
were
$617.00
for
photocopies
other
incurred
of
documents
medical
records.
pleadings,
motions,
than
copying
correspondence, courtesy copies for the court, and transcripts.
All of these costs are reasonably necessary to the litigation, and
the charge of ten cents per page was reasonable.
See, Hernandez-
Martinez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 11 C 4990, 2013 WL
2384251, *4 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2013) (“Courts in this district have
generally held that 10 to 20 cents per page is a reasonable cost
for black and white copies.”).
Finally,
Defendant
seeks
to
be
reimbursed
for
the
cost
associated with having to produce an employee for a deposition that
never went forward on the date scheduled.
Plaintiff scheduled
depositions for two of Defendant’s employees for the same day, but
spent all his time on the first employee while the second waited
outside.
Defendant produced that second witness again on a later
date, and thus Defendant lost two days of the witness’s salary for
only one day of deposition testimony.
Defendant asks the Court to
tax as a cost the witness’s salary for the day that the witness
appeared but did not testify.
The statute that allows for taxation of costs enumerates those
categories of costs that are recoverable, one of which is “[f]ees
and
disbursements
§ 1920(3).
for
printing
and
witnesses.”
28
U.S.C.
That section is limited by 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b), which
- 3 -
provides that “[a] witness shall be paid an attendance fee of $40
per day for each day's attendance.”
The Seventh Circuit has held
that a prevailing party can collect witness fees for witnesses who
were subpoenaed to testify but never called, because witnesses are
paid for their time, not their testimony.
Haroco, Inc. v. Am. Nat.
Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, 38 F.3d 1429, 1442 (7th Cir. 1994).
The Court is not aware of any authority for the idea that a
regular wage or salary, paid to an employee who was called to
testify during regular work hours, can count as a witness fee for
the purposes of the cost shifting statute.
It is reasonable,
however, to assign that expense as a recoverable cost because
Defendant was forced to produce its employee on two separate days
for one day of deposition testimony.
employee
for
the
day
where
the
The salary paid to the
employee
testified is analogous to a witness fee.
neither
worked
nor
Because Defendant asks
for only one day of witness costs, the Court need not decide
whether Defendant could recover a witness fee for the day when
Defendant’s employee actually testified.
Defendant cites no authority for the idea that this Court can
require Plaintiff to pay the entire day’s lost salary, or $475.04.
The Court may only shift litigation costs when it has the express
statutory authority to do so.
See, Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T.
Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987).
- 4 -
Defendant asks for
only one day of salary, so the Court awards a witness fee for one
day, or $40.00.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant is entitled to a
total award of $2,613.20.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to
tax costs in the amount of $2,613.20 in favor of the Defendant and
against the Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Date:11/18/2013
- 5 -
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?