Brown v. Compas Group et al

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Written by the Honorable Gary Feinerman on 5/13/2013.Mailed notice.(jlj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SHAWNTIA D. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMPASS GROUP, CROTHALL HEALTHCARE,
INC., and CLAYTON SMITH JR.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

11 C 6789
Judge Feinerman

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Shawntia Brown filed this lawsuit against her former employers, Compass Group
and Crothall Healthcare, Inc., and her former supervisor, Clayton Smith Jr. The court
dismissed most of Brown’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 2012
WL 1231064 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2012). After discovery closed, the court granted
summary judgment to Defendants on the remaining claims. 2013 WL 842643 (N.D. Ill.
Mar. 6, 2013). Now before the court are: (1) the bill of costs filed by Defendants under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), which seeks $1956.45 for the transcript of
Brown’s deposition, Docs. 94, 95; (2) Brown’s motion for reconsideration of the grant of
summary judgment to Defendants, Doc. 98; and (3) Brown’s motion to extend time to
respond to the bill of costs, Doc. 99.
Brown’s motions for reconsideration and for extension of time to respond to the
bill of costs are denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.3(b), which provides:
PRESENTMENT. Every motion or objection shall be accompanied
by a notice of presentment specifying the date and time on which, and
judge before whom, the motion or objection is to be presented. The
date of presentment shall be not more than 14 days following the date

1

on which the motion or objection is delivered to the court pursuant to
[Local Rule] 78.1.
See also ChampionsWorld LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed’n, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 961, 965
(N.D. Ill. 2010) (denying motions for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.3(b)).
Brown—who is represented by an attorney—failed to notice either of these motions for
presentment as required by Local Rule 5.3(b). This failure is especially perplexing
because, as noted in the summary judgment opinion, Brown previously had a motion
denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.3(b), Doc. 87; see 2013 WL 842643, at
*1, and Magistrate Judge Kim informed Brown of her duty to comply with Local Rule
5.3(b) with respect to yet another motion, Doc. 68 (“Even if Plaintiff … did in fact intend
to file this document [Doc. 65] as a motion, this motion 65 must be denied without
prejudice as it fails to comply with Local Rule 5.3.”).
Although Brown did not respond to the bill of costs, the court will consider
independently “whether the costs are allowable and, if so, whether they are reasonable
and necessary.” Soler v. Waite, 989 F.2d 251, 255 (7th Cir. 1993). “Although a district
court has discretion when awarding costs, the discretion is narrowly confined because of
the strong presumption created by Rule 54(d)(1) that the prevailing party will recover
costs.” Contreras v. City of Chicago, 119 F.3d 1286, 1295 (7th Cir. 1997) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendants are the prevailing parties in this case. They seek costs of $1956.45 for
the transcript of Brown’s deposition, Doc. 94 at 1; Doc. 95-1. Such costs are allowable
under § 1920(2). See Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1002 (7th Cir. 1998). The Seventh
Circuit described the law governing the recovery of costs for deposition transcripts as
follows:

2

[P]laintiff’s argument that the depositions were used sparingly in
defendant’s summary judgment motion and therefore were not
necessarily obtained for use in this case is … without merit. The
introduction of a deposition in a summary judgment motion or at trial
is not a prerequisite for finding that it was necessary to take that
deposition. The proper inquiry is whether the deposition was
“reasonably necessary” to the case at the time it was taken, not
whether it was used in a motion or in court.
Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 455 (7th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
Defendants’ attorney avers that the $1956.45 figure is the amount Defendants
were billed “in fees for court reporter and copy of deposition transcript in connection
with the deposition of Shawntia Brown.” Doc. 95-1 at 1. Defendants also submit the
invoice from the firm that produced the deposition; it includes a court reporter attendance
fee of $450 for 7.5 hours ($60 per hour) and an original transcript fee of $1506.45 for 363
pages at a price of $4.15 per page, for a total of $450 + $1506.45 = $1956.45. Id. at 4.
There is no doubt that taking Brown’s deposition was reasonably necessary; she is the
plaintiff, and her claims turned on her personal experiences while employed by
Defendants.
That said, Defendants are not entitled to the full amount they seek. Local Rule
54.1(b) provides that “the cost 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 unless some other rate was previously
provided by order of court.” The Judicial Conference’s current rate is $3.65 per page, see
Harney v. City of Chicago, 702 F.3d 916, 927 (7th Cir. 2012); Pugh v. Bd. of Educ. of the
City of Chi., 2012 WL 5199629, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2012); Nicholson v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 2012 WL 1192077, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2012), and no order allowing for a
higher rate was entered in this case. In the undersigned’s view, the Judicial Conference’s

3

$3.65 per page rate should be applied to the total costs charged for the transcript itself
and the appearance fee. See Serwatka v. City of Chicago, 2011 WL 2038725, at *1 (N.D.
Ill. May 24, 2011); Rogers v. City of Chicago, 2002 WL 423723, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15,
2002) (“The Judicial Conference rate allowed for original deposition transcripts …
covers all costs of transcript production.”); see also Harney, 702 F.3d at 927-28 (noting
that “there appears to be a split among the district judges in the Northern District of
Illinois, with some judges awarding appearance fees in addition to the maximum
allowable per page transcript fee and other district judges limiting the taxable costs to the
per page rate,” and finding it unnecessary to resolve the split in that case) (citing cases).
It follows that the Judicial Conference’s rate allows a maximum total cost (including
appearance fees) of $1324.95 (363 x $3.65). Accordingly, Defendants’ costs are reduced
by $631.50 to $1324.95.
Because Defendants seek costs only for the one deposition transcript, and because
the court perceives no further reasons for reducing the amount allowed, the court awards
costs of $1324.95.

May 13, 2013
United States District Judge

4