Miller et al v. Plymouth City of et al

Filing 760

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs 757 Motion for Reconsideration and reducing the award of costs against Plaintiffs in favor of Plymouth Defendants from $5,541.82 to $1,734; denying 758 Defendants motion to strike; denying 759 Defendants motion for summary ruling. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 9/30/14. cc: Miller plaintiffs (mc)

United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
Hammond Division
KEVIN D. MILLER and
JAMILA D. MILLER,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:09-CV-205 JVB
v.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH et al.
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
I.
As the fairy tale dragon that grows two heads when one is cut off, this case has produced
numerous motions in the nature of striking, reconsidering, etc. Three of such motions are still
pending:


Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s award of costs to the Plymouth Defendants
(incorrectly styled as a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure) (DE 757);



Plymouth Defendant’s motion (DE 758) titled and marked--o PLYMOUTH DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ RULE
59(e) MOTION TO RECONSIDER AWARD OF COSTS TO THE PLYMOUTH
DEFENDANTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STRIKE ATTACHMENT
NO. 1 TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER AWARD OF COSTS
ENTITLED PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OBJECTION TO THE PLYMOUTH
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED BILL OF COSTS, OR IN FURTHER
ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
RECONSIDER AWARD OF COSTS TO THE PLYMOUTH DEFENDANTS;



and Plymouth Defendants’ motion for summary ruling (DE 759).

1

Although Plymouth Defendants1 style their filings as motions, they really are responses to
Plaintiffs’ request to reconsider the award of costs. Interestingly, Defendants seek Plaintiffs’
motion to be stricken because it was filed a few days late, despite the fact that their own
motion for costs was filed late, yet was accepted by the Court. Be this as it may, Plaintiffs
ask reconsideration because they did not have the benefit of objecting in detail to
Defendants’ motion for costs.

II.
The Court awarded Defendants $5,541.82 in costs against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs now point
out that the award was excessive because some of the costs submitted by Defendants were
not taxable, were not substantiated, or sought a greater amount than was actually billed. Most
of Plaintiffs’ objections are well taken (and Defendants do not make any specific argument to
counter them).
For example, Defendants were billed $1,2562 by Collette Festa, a court reporter, for the
transcript of Mr. Miller deposition testimony. Yet the bill does not indicate (and Defendants
do not independently provide) the number of pages contained in the transcript. Without this
information, the Court cannot determine whether the amount requested is reasonable and
necessary. See Glenayre Electronics, Inc. v. Jackson, 02 C 256, 2003 WL 21947112, *2
(N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2003). Moreover, Defendants’ bill shows that it includes a charge of $392
for a condensed transcript of Mr. Miller’s deposition testimony for Defendant Marshal

1
2

For simplicity, from here on, the Court will refer to them as “Defendants.”
For ease of reading, the Court will round the cents of all charges stated in the order.
2

County’s attorney. However, Marshal County’s bill of costs was denied and Plaintiffs should
not have to pay for Marshal County via Defendants’ submissions. For these reasons, the
transcript cost for Mr. Miller’s deposition will be disallowed.
Next, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants’ bill for Mr. Nicely’s deposition transcript be reduced
from $3,176 to $1,318. As Plaintiffs explain, the per-page charges were excessive and the bill
included various fees that are not generally recoverable (e-transcript fees, “read and sign”
fee, condensed version fee, shipping and handling fee, and late fees). Accordingly, the Court
will reduce Mr. Nicely’s transcript cost as requested.
Plaintiffs also object to Defendants submitting as costs their bill of $175 for transcribing
the audio conversations during the traffic stop. Plaintiffs believe that the audio did not
necessitate the transcript in preparation for litigation. The Court disagrees. The audio
transcription in this case was easier to handle than a video recording and thus the cost was
reasonably incurred by Defendants in preparation for their defense.
Lastly, Plaintiffs submit that the printing costs of $404 should be reduced to $241.
Plaintiffs point out that some of the costs were incurred for the convenience of the parties,
some were unsubstantiated, and several charges were unnecessarily incurred. The Court
agrees and will reduce printing costs to $241.
In summary, the Court--

Grants in Part and Denies in Part Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider (DE 757) and
reduces the award of costs against Plaintiffs in favor of Plymouth Defendants
from $5,541.82 to $1,734;



Denies Plymouth Defendants’ motion to strike, etc. (DE 758); and



Denies Plymouth Defendants’ motion for summary ruling (DE 759).

3

SO ORDERED on September 30, 2014.

S/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4