Muller v. Morgan et al

Filing 143

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 12/29/2014:Mailed notice(wp, )

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

MELISSA MULLER,
Case No. 12 C 1815
Plaintiff,
v.

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber

RICH MORGAN, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
After

being

terminated

BACKGROUND
from

her

position

as

a

regional

manager at a laser hair removal company called American Laser
Skincare (“ALS”), Plaintiff Melissa Muller (“Muller”) initiated
this

action

alleging,

among

other

things,

that

Defendant

Chelsea Klinke (“Klinke”), ALS’s then-Vice President and Clinic
Manager, violated the Family and Medical Leave Act by demoting
and otherwise harassing her for taking maternity leave.
also

claimed

that

Klinke

tortiously

interfered

Muller

with

her

existing employment relationship with ALS and, subsequently,
with her prospective employment relationship with the company
that purchased ALS’s assets in a bankruptcy sale.
On

June

12,

2014,

following

a

four-day

trial,

a

jury

returned a verdict in favor of Klinke on each of Muller’s
claims.

The Court entered judgment in accordance with that

verdict and Muller declined to take an appeal.

Klinke now

seeks to collect from Muller the litigation costs she incurred
in defending the suit.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that a
prevailing

party

may

obtain

reimbursement

for

litigation costs at the conclusion of a lawsuit.
establishes

a

“presumption

that

the

prevailing

certain
The Rule

party

will

recover costs, and the losing party bears the burden of an
affirmative

showing

that

taxed

costs

are

not

appropriate.”

Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co., 411 F.3d 854, 864 (7th
Cir. 2005).

In evaluating an application for costs, the Court

must determine first whether the claimed costs are recoverable,
and

second,

whether

the

costs

requested

are

reasonable.

Majeske v. City of Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 824 (7th Cir. 2000).
The Court has “wide latitude” in fixing a reasonable award.
Deimer v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods., Inc., 58 F.3d 341, 345
(7th Cir. 1995).
III.

ANALYSIS

Klinke seeks to recover costs totaling $2,032.45, which are
itemized as follows:

(1) $89.00 in fees for service of a

subpoena for records on one of Muller’s medical providers, (2)
$1,711.55
Muller’s

in

fees

associated

deposition,

and

(3)

with

obtaining

$231.90

- 2 -

in

transcripts

photocopying

of

costs

incurred

in

preparing

certain

pretrial

submissions

Court and various exhibits for use at trial.
Klinke’s application on two grounds.
costs

should

indigent.

not

be

assessed

for

the

Muller opposes

First, she argues that

against

her

because

she

is

Second, she contends that Klinke’s requested costs

should be reduced because they exceed that which is allowable
by statute.
With regard to Muller’s first objection, the general rule
is that a party may be excused of her obligation to pay costs
only

in

“exceptional

circumstances.”

Porter

v.

City

of

Chicago, No. 08 C 7165, 2014 WL 3805681, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug.
1, 2014).

Although indigence sometimes can qualify under that

standard, the losing party must demonstrate both that she is
incapable of paying any court-imposed costs at the present time
and that she has no reasonable prospect of being able to pay in
the future.
Cir. 2006).
Muller

did

Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 635 (7th
Muller has made no such showing here.
submit

an

affidavit

stating

generally

While

that

she

currently is unemployed and has no income or savings, there is
nothing to suggest that she will be unable to find work in the
future.

“[W]here it is possible, even if unlikely, that a

losing party will be gainfully employed in the future, the
awarding of costs to the prevailing party is appropriate.”
Porter, 2014 WL 3805681, at *2; see also, Denson v. Ne. Ill.
- 3 -

Reg’l Commuter R.R. Corp., No. 00 C 2984, 2003 WL 21506946, at
*2 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2003).

Muller’s obligation to pay costs

in this case therefore cannot be extinguished on the basis of
her alleged indigence.
Muller’s

second

objection

is

that

reimbursement

of

a

$570.00 court reporter appearance fee, which Klinke included as
part of her requested deposition costs, should be disallowed
because such fees are not recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920,
the

federal

cost-shifting

statute.

Actually,

the

Seventh

Circuit has held that reporter attendance fees may be awarded
under

Rule

54(d)

even

though

specifically in the statute.
998, 1002 (7th Cir. 1998).

they

are

not

mentioned

See, e.g., Held v. Held, 137 F.3d
However, deposition transcripts are

compensable only up to maximum per-page rate of $3.65 as set by
the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Since that rate

“covers all costs of transcript production,” Rogers v. City of
Chicago,

2002

(emphasis

in

WL

423723,

original),

at

*3

Klinke

(N.D.
is

Ill.

not

Mar.

entitled

15,
to

2002)

recover

attendance fees to the extent that they would result in a total
charge that exceeds the $3.65 per-page cap.

See, Allen v. City

of Chicago, No. 09 C 243, 2013 WL 1966363, at *3 (N.D. Ill.
May 10, 2013)(collecting cases).

Thus, because Klinke already

seeks to collect costs for Muller’s deposition transcript at
the

maximum

rate

allowable,
- 4 -

she

may

not

also

obtain

reimbursement for court reporter attendance fees.

Accordingly,

the $570.00 in claimed attendance fees is not recoverable.
Finally,

Muller

contends

that

Klinke

should

not

be

permitted to recover $91.60 in photocopying expenses she claims
to have incurred in connection with replicating 136 pages of
exhibits for use by the jury because those costs reflect a perpage rate that is unreasonably high.

For all other photocopies,

Klinke applied a rate of $0.10 per page, yet, for the jury
exhibits, she claimed expenses at a rate of $0.67 per page.
Klinke concedes that this was a “math error” and has agreed to
accept reimbursement for the jury exhibits at the lower $0.10
per-page rate, which is reasonable and falls within the range
generally

approved

by

courts

in

this

District.

See,

e.g.,

Sommerfield v. City of Chicago, No. 06 C 3132, 2012 WL 5381255,
at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2012)(approving copying costs at rates
between

$0.10

and

$0.20

per

page);

Shanklin

Corp.

v.

Am.

Packaging Machinery, Inc., No. 95 C 1617, 2006 WL 2054382, at *4
(N.D.

Ill.

July

18,

2006)(same).

Applying

the

$0.10

rate,

Klinke is entitled to photocopy costs for her jury exhibits in
the amount of $13.60.
IV.
For

the

reasons

stated

CONCLUSION
herein,

Klinke’s

application

for

costs [ECF No. 133] is granted in part and denied in part.

For

the reasons stated, Klinke’s requested costs shall be reduced
- 5 -

by $648.00.

Accordingly, costs are taxed against Muller in the

amount of $1,384.45.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Dated:12/29/2014

- 6 -