WHITFIELD et al v. THE PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK et al
ORDER Affirming 56 Taxed Bill of Costs re 57 MOTION Review The Clerk's Taxed Bill of Costs and Award Defendants No Costs in this matter re 56 Costs Taxed, 55 Bill of Costs filed by DANIEL LEWINSKI, LISA PORTER, ADAM HAKIM, GEORGE WHITFIELD, MICHELLE LEWINSKI. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
George Whitfield, et al.,
Case No. 13-11070
The Pep Boys – Many, Moe, & Jack,
Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge
ORDER AFFIRMING CLERK’S TAXED BILL OF COSTS
Plaintiffs filed this action in state court, asserting multiple claims against Defendant. The
action was removed to this Court on March 8, 2013.
Following the close of discovery, on March 31, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment relied on, and attached,
several deposition transcripts.
In responding to Defendants’s Motion for Summary Judgment, on April 28, 2014,
Plaintiffs conceded that all claims except Counts X and XII should be dismissed. (Docket Entry
No. 51 at 2).
This Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and on August 11, 2014,
this Court issued a Judgment dismissing this action with prejudice.
Thereafter, Defendant filed a Bill of Costs and the Clerk of the Court taxed costs in the
amount of $2,269.36. (See Docket Entry Nos. 55 & 56).
On August 27, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion To Review Clerk’s Taxed Bill Of Costs”
(Docket Entry No. 57).
“Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other
than attorney's fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). Rule
54(d)(1) “creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs, but allows denial of costs at the
discretion of the trial court.” Knology, Inc. v. Insight Commc'ns, L.P., 460 F.3d 722, 726 (6th
Cir.2006) (quoting Singleton v. Smith, 241 F.3d 534, 539 (6th Cir.2001)). Costs may be denied
“where, although a litigant was the successful party, it would be inequitable under all the
circumstances in the case to put the burden of costs upon the losing party.” White & White, Inc.
v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp., 786 F.2d 728, 730 (6th Cir.1986) (emphasis omitted). The losing
party bears the burden “to show circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption favoring
an award of costs to the prevailing party.” Id. at 732.
Here, Plaintiffs argue that no costs should be taxed, or only reduced costs should be
taxed, and they make two arguments.
First, they assert that the Clerk of the Court improperly included fees for the cost of video
fees for depositions. But the docket reflects that Defendant did not seek, and the Clerk of the
Court did not award, costs for video fees. This objection is therefore without merit.
Second, Plaintiffs assert that costs should not be assessed because Plaintiffs conceded
that most of their claims should be dismissed when they responded to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. While Plaintiffs ultimately conceded that many of their claims should be
dismissed, they did so only after discovery had closed and only after Defendant had used the
deposition transcripts at issue to file and support a dispositive motion. Under these
circumstances, it is not inequitable to award Defendant the costs it incurred for those transcripts.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Court finds Plaintiffs’ objections without merit
and AFFIRMS the Clerk’s Bill of Taxed Costs in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: September 23, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
September 23, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?