Bell v. ABB Group, Inc. et al

Filing 402

ORDER GRANTING Defendant John Crane Inc.'s Bill of Costs [Doc. 396]. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 1/25/2016. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SHARON BELL, Executor of the Estate of
Mr. Richard W. Bell, Deceased,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
THE ABB GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 13-CV-1338-SMY-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Sharon Bell brought this action as the executor of the estate of her husband,
Richard Bell, alleging Bell developed lung cancer due to his exposure to asbestos-containing
products while serving in the United States Navy. This Court granted Defendant John Crane
Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. Now pending before the Court is John Crane’s Bill of
Costs (Doc. 396). John Crane seeks a total of $866.85 for deposition costs related to deposing
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s sole fact witness, Mike Loveless. Plaintiff filed an objection (Doc. 399).
For the following reasons, the Bill of Costs is GRANTED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute, these
rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney's fees—should be allowed
to the prevailing party.” Ordinarily the Clerk of Court taxes costs in favor of the prevailing party
on 14 days' notice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). Those costs may include:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed and electronically recorded
transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for
printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making
copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the
case; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court
1

appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and
costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
28 U.S.C. § 1920. The Court presumes that a prevailing party is entitled to costs as a matter of
course, but has the discretion to deny or reduce costs where warranted. Krocka v. City of
Chicago, 203 F.3d 507, 518 (7th Cir.2000). This presumption in favor of awarding costs is
difficult for the non-prevailing party to overcome. Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd.,
126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir.1997). Unless and until the losing party affirmatively shows that the
prevailing party is not entitled to costs, the district court must award them, ‘as of course.’
Congregation of the Passion, Holy Cross Province v. Touche, Ross & Co., 854 F.2d 219, 222
(7th Cir.1988).
The Seventh Circuit has recognized two situations that warrant the denial of costs: “the
first involves misconduct of the party seeking costs, and the second involves a pragmatic
exercise of discretion to deny or reduce a costs order if the losing party is indigent.” Mother &
Father v. Cassidy, 338 F.3d 704, 708 (7th Cir. 2003). In this case, Plaintiff has not asserted that
John Crane committed misconduct or that she is indigent. Rather, Plaintiff’s sole argument is
that – because this case did not go to trial – the depositions were merely obtained for the
convenience of defense counsel.
Deposition costs, including transcripts, are authorized under § 1920(2) as stenographic
transcripts. Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 455 (7th Cir.1998). Regarding
whether depositions are properly taxable, the Seventh Circuit does not require that the deposition
be used at trial in order to find it “necessary” and thus, taxable. Id. Rather, the Court examines
“whether the deposition was ‘reasonably necessary’ to the case at the time it was taken ....” Id.
(citation omitted). Here, the Court finds that the depositions of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s sole fact
witness, Mr. Loveless, were reasonably necessary to the case at the time the depositions were
2

taken. Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objection and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court
to tax costs in the amount of $866.85.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 25, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

3