Zamora v. Wier et al

Filing 96

WRITTEN Opinion Signed by the Honorable Sheila Finnegan on 6/2/2014: Defendants' Bill of Costs 93 is allowed in the amount of $2,935.40. [For further details see order.] Mailed notice. (is, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MARIO ZAMORA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC WIER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 11 C 7703
Magistrate Judge Finnegan

ORDER
On October 28, 2009, fifteen Chicago Police Officers executed a search warrant
at Plaintiff Mario Zamora’s home and arrested him on numerous weapons-related
charges. Plaintiff subsequently filed this federal lawsuit alleging (in part) that Defendant
Officers violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they (1) failed to knock and announce their
presence before entering the residence; (2) acted unreasonably in conducting the
search by destroying certain personal property and using excessive force against him;
and (3) failed to intervene to stop this unlawful conduct. The parties consented to the
jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and
this Court held a jury trial from February 3 through 5, 2014.

After hearing all the

evidence, the Court granted Defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law as to
the failure to intervene and destruction of property claims. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
the excessive force claims against all Defendants except Officer Wier, leaving the jury
to decide (1) the sole remaining excessive force claim, and (2) the claims of failure to
knock and announce against all Defendants. (Doc. 88). On February 5, 2014, the jury

returned a verdict in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on all those claims, and
the Court entered judgment for Defendants. (Doc. 89, 90).
Defendants now seek to recover $2,935.40 in costs pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. ' 1920. For the reasons set forth here, the request for costs is
granted.
DISCUSSION
Rule 54(d) creates a “strong presumption that costs will be awarded to the
prevailing party,” and that presumption is “difficult to overcome.” U.S. Neurosurgical,
Inc. v. City of Chicago, 572 F.3d 325, 333 (7th Cir. 2009); Weeks v. Samsung Heavy
Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997); Gilbert-Mitchell v. Lappin, No. 06-CV0741-MJR, 2010 WL 1838283, at *2 (S.D. Ill. May 6, 2010). Under 28 U.S.C. ' 1920,
recoverable costs include (1) fees of the clerk and marshal, (2) fees for transcripts, (3)
fees for printing and witnesses, (4) fees for copies necessarily obtained for use in the
case, (5) docket fees, and (6) compensation of court appointed experts and interpreters.
Republic Tobacco Co. v. North Atlantic Trading Co., 481 F.3d 442, 447 (7th Cir. 2007).
As the losing party, Plaintiff “bears the burden of affirmatively showing that the taxed
costs are not appropriate.” Se-Kure Controls, Inc. v. Vanguard Prods. Group, Inc., 873
F. Supp. 2d 939, 944 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (citing Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co., 411
F.3d 854, 864 (7th Cir. 2005)).
Defendants seek a total of $2,935.40 in costs, including: (1) $2,368.60 for court
reporter and transcript fees; (2) $76.80 for copying expenses; and (3) $490 for trial
poster boards and binders. (Doc. 93). Plaintiff has chosen not to file any responsive
memorandum, leaving no dispute that Defendants are the prevailing parties in this case

2

entitled to costs. See Republic Tobacco Co., 481 F.3d at 446. In the absence of any
objections from Plaintiff regarding the amounts claimed, the Court finds that all of the
requested costs are properly taxable.
A.

Transcript Costs
“Section 1920(2) allows recovery of fees for transcripts necessarily obtained for

use in the case.” Berry v. Chicago Transit Auth., No. 06 C 3640, 2011 WL 947073, at
*2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2011). Local Rule 54.1 further elaborates that the costs of such
transcripts Ashall 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 for by order of court.@ L.R.
54.1(b). For ordinary transcripts, the rate is $3.65 per page for an original transcript and
$0.90 for the first copy to each party.

See Maximum Transcript Rates,

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/clerksoffice/CLERKS_OFFICE/CrtReporter/trnscript.
htm (last viewed on (last viewed on May 30, 2014). Local Rule 54.1 also allows for
recovery of court reporter attendance fees not to exceed $110 for one half day (4 hours
or less), and $220 for a full day.

See http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/_assets/_

documents/e-transcripts/Local%20Rule%2054.1.pdf (last viewed on May 30, 2014).
Defendants seek to recover $2,368.60 for six transcripts: (1) $162.50 for a 50page court hearing transcript on February 14, 2014; (2) $2,079 for Plaintiff’s 298-page
videotaped deposition on July 31, 2013; (3) $26 for an 8-page court hearing on May 10,
2013; (4) $29.25 for a 9-page court hearing on February 26, 2013; (5) $59.85 for a 19page court hearing in the underlying criminal case on February 14, 2011; and (6) $12
for a 4-page court hearing in the underlying criminal case on June 11, 2010.

3

Defendants have billed for each of these depositions at between $3.15 and $3.25 per
page, which is well below the allowed rate. (See Doc. 93-1, at 4 of 14). In addition,
Plaintiff does not dispute that the transcripts – including the videotaped deposition and
associated court reporter attendance fees – were necessarily obtained for use in the
case. See Little v. Mitsubishi Motors N. Am., Inc., 514 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 2008)
(holding that courts may “tax the costs of stenographically transcribing a video-recorded
deposition” in addition to the costs of the video-recording itself).

These costs are

therefore awarded in full.
B.

Copying Expenses
“A prevailing party may recover costs for copies that were ‘necessary for use in

the case.’” Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 962, 978
(N.D. Ill. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. ' 1920(4)). Materials necessary “for use in the case”
include “copies attributable to discovery and copies of pleadings, motions, and
memoranda submitted to the court; they do not include copies made solely for the
convenience of counsel.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Defendants seek reimbursement of $76.80 for photocopies at the reasonable
rate of $0.15 per page. See, e.g., Wells v. Johnson, No. 06 C 6284, 2012 WL 3245955,
at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2012) (finding $0.15 per page reasonable); Perry v. City of
Chicago, No. 08 C 4730, 2011 WL 612342, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2011) (same).
Plaintiff does not claim that the copies were unnecessary for use in this case, and
Defendants may therefore recover the full amount requested.

4

C.

Other Expenses
Defendants finally seek to recover $460 expended on trial poster boards showing

the Officers’ positions throughout the search of Plaintiff’s home, and $30 spent on trial
exhibit binders for the jurors. Given the large number of Officers involved in executing
the warrant and their varied and changing locations, the poster boards greatly assisted
both the Court and the jury in understanding the parties’ actions in this case and were
not merely procured for Defendants’ convenience. See Vardon Golf Co. v. Karsten Mfg.
Corp., No. 99 C 2785, 2003 WL 1720066, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2003) (awarding
costs for demonstrative exhibits that “made the issues more clear to the jury,” “were
certainly of assistance to the Court,” and “were necessary to the litigation.”). The same
is true of the exhibit binders provided to the jury. See Telular Corp. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., No. 01 C 431, 2006 WL 1722375, at *6 (N.D. Ill. June 16, 2006) (allowing costs
for juror exhibit binders). Plaintiff does not argue otherwise or challenge the requested
amounts, and they are awarded in full.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Bill of Costs (Doc. 93) is allowed in
the amount of $2,935.40.
ENTER:
Dated: June 2, 2014

_____________________________
SHEILA FINNEGAN
United States Magistrate Judge

5