Alarm Detection Systems, Inc. v. Bloomingdale Fire Protection District et al

Filing 546

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, the Court taxes costs against Alarm Detection in the following amounts:$59,261.00 owed to Tyco; $17,960.29 owed to Orland; and $2,204.70 owed to Du-Comm. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 8/8/2019:Mailed notice(srn, )

Case: 1:14-cv-00876 Document #: 546 Filed: 08/08/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:17123

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ALARM DETECTION SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

No. 14 C 876

v.

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

ORLAND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT;
TYCO INTEGRATED SECURITY, LLC; and
DUPAGE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNICATIONS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Prevailing parties Tyco, Orland, and Du-Comm have filed bills of costs. R. 510;
R. 520; R. 529. Alarm Detection opposes the requests in part. R. 534.
I.

Deposition Transcript Copies
Northern District Local Rule 54.1 limits the per-page cost for deposition

transcript originals at $3.65 and copies at $0.90. Courts interpret this rule to mean
that each party may tax costs for one copy of a transcript at $3.65 per page, and costs
for a second copy at $0.90 per page. See Haroco, Inc. v. Am. Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. of
Chi., 38 F.3d 1429, 1441 (7th Cir. 1994) (“We note that the bank was awarded costs
for only one set of transcripts. . . . Therefore we find that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in finding that the bank obtained original transcripts and
awarding costs at the original transcript rate.”); see also Williams v. Schwarz, 2018
WL 4705558, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2018) (“It appears from the record before the
Court that the transcripts for the three depositions in question ‘were the only

Case: 1:14-cv-00876 Document #: 546 Filed: 08/08/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:17123

transcripts provided to [Plaintiff], and therefore are more properly understood as
original transcripts within the meaning of Local Rule 54.1.’” (quoting Pezl v. Amore
Mio, Inc., 2015 WL 2375381, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2015))); Temple v. City of
Chicago, 2016 WL 8669630, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2016) (“If a deposition transcript
is the only set the prevailing party received for the deponent, then the transcript is
considered an original and may be taxed at the original transcript rate.”).
Alarm Detection argues that Tyco, Orland, and Du-Comm seek costs for copies
that exceed the $0.90 per-page limit. But the invoices supporting the bills of costs
indicate that the parties received only one copy each. This is considered an original
under Rule 54.1, and per-page costs less than the $3.65 limit are reasonable. The
Court will not decrease Defendants’ requests for the costs of deposition transcripts.
II.

Orland and Du-Comm
Alarm Detection does not challenge any other costs sought by Orland and Du-

Comm. Therefore, their bills of costs will be granted in full.
III.

Tyco
Tyco concedes that its costs for deposition transcript rough drafts, court

reporter attendance fees, and expert fees should be reduced by the amounts indicated
in Alarm Detection’s brief. See R. 535 at 1. Therefore, Tyco’s bill will be reduced by
$536.25, $607.00, and $31,833.60, respectively.
Tyco opposes Alarm Detection’s argument for reduction of fees for expedited
transcripts and video depositions. In its reply brief, Tyco explains that expedited
transcripts were required because in each case the Court had orally ordered action
within seven days or less. See R. 535 at 2. The Court finds these costs to be reasonable.
2

Case: 1:14-cv-00876 Document #: 546 Filed: 08/08/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:17123

See Halo Creative & Design Ltd. v. Comptoir Des Indes Inc., 2018 WL 4742066, at *10
(N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2018) (“[M]otions in limine were due only days after the scheduled
depositions and the real time/rough transcripts and expedited delivery were
necessary to prepare the motions.”); Sullivan v. F.E. Moran, Inc., 2018 WL 4515999,
at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2018) (“In light of the firm fact discovery deadline, and the
motion practice that immediately followed Sullivan’s deposition, this Court would
agree that the expedited costs of the transcript were reasonably necessary and
should be allowed.”).
Alarm Detection also argues that video recordings of depositions were not
necessary. Deposition video recordings costs may be taxed under 18 U.S.C. § 1920 if
they are reasonable and necessary. See Little v. Mitsubishi Motors N. Am., Inc., 514
F.3d 699, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2008). Some courts have found such costs reasonable and
necessary merely because a witness is on a party’s “will call” or “may call” trial
witness list. See The Medicines Co. v. Mylan Inc., 2017 WL 4882379, at *5 (N.D. Ill.
Oct. 30, 2017) (St. Eve, J.); LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 2011 WL
5008425, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2011) (St. Eve, J.). Other courts have found it
unnecessary to video record depositions of witnesses who are within the court’s
subpoena power, and have denied such costs on that basis. See Cascades Computer
Innovation, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2016 WL 612792, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16,
2016); Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg N.A., 2016 WL 316865, at *2
(N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2016) (Kennelly, J.); Merix Pharm. Corp. v. Clinical Supplies
Mgmt., Inc., 106 F. Supp. 3d 927, 943 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (Kennelly, J.); Chi. Bd. Options
Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 2014 WL 125937, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2014)
3

Case: 1:14-cv-00876 Document #: 546 Filed: 08/08/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:17123

(Lefkow, J.) (“Given that, as [the plaintiff] asserts, these witnesses were outside of
the court’s subpoena power and [the defendant] did not plan to call them in person at
trial, the court finds that [the plaintiff] established that it was reasonable and
necessary to videotape these depositions and thus to recover costs for so doing.”). The
Court finds that the better standard for determining reasonableness and necessity is
the reach of the Court’s subpoena power. Tyco does not assert that any of the
witnesses in question could not be reached with subpoena. Indeed, some of the
witnesses actually testified live at trial and the recordings were used merely during
opening statements. Tyco has not demonstrated that these costs were reasonably
necessary, so the Court will subtract $5,442.68 in costs for deposition video recordings
from the total.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court taxes costs against Alarm Detection in the
following amounts:
$59,261.00 owed to Tyco;
$17,960.29 owed to Orland; and
$2,204.70 owed to Du-Comm.
ENTERED:
______________________________
Honorable Thomas M. Durkin
United States District Judge

Dated: August 8, 2019

4