Tinker v. Acuity Insurance Company

Filing 101

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Bill of Costs (Doc. No. 99) is GRANTED in the amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-six Dollars and Thirty-five Cents ( $1,956.35). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Bill of Costs (Doc. No. 95) is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terry I. Adelman on 7/29/2013. (KMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SARA E. TINKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACUITY, A MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11CV1286 TIA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Bill of Costs (Doc. No. 99). The parties
consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
On March 6, 2013, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. This Court issued
judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff on March 11, 2013. Defendant then filed a Bill of
Taxable Costs with evidence of said costs attached on March 27, 2013. Plaintiff objected to certain
costs contained in the motion, including costs of Plaintiff’s depositions, costs for certain copies, and
costs for the service of subpoenas. Because Defendant did not submit the costs on the form required
by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, this Court ordered Defendant
to re-file its bill of costs on form AO-0133. Defendant then properly filed its Bill of Costs on June
12, 2013, requesting costs in the amount of $3,659.66. Plaintiff renewed her objection on July 15,
2013.1 Defendant has not filed a reply to either objection, and the time for doing so has expired.

1

The undersigned notes that the second objection was filed out of time. However, the
objections are nearly identical, and the Court presumes that Plaintiff may have been unsure
whether to renew the objection or merely rest on her original pleading. In any event, the Court
will also consider Plaintiff’s most recent objection.

In its Bill of Costs, Defendant requests that costs be taxed for fees of the court reporter, fees
for witnesses, copying costs, and other costs, consisting of the costs of serving subpoenas. In
response, Plaintiff contends that the costs of Sara Tinker’s examinations under oath are not
recoverable because they were taken for the purpose of discovery and not necessarily obtained for
use in the case; the request costs for copies of documents for carrier’s review is vague and insufficient
under 28 U.S.C. § 1920; and the subpoena costs are not recoverable because the subpoenas were
served by a private special process server and not a U.S. Marshal. Thus, Plaintiff argues that
$1,703.31 of Defendant’s requested $3,659.66 is not taxable.
Defendant has not filed a response to Plaintiff’s objection, despite two opportunities to do so.
The Court thus finds that the amount requested in Defendant’s Bill of Costs should be reduced by the
amount proposed by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the undersigned will award costs to the Defendant in
the amount of $1,956.35.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Bill of Costs (Doc. No. 99) is GRANTED
in the amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-six Dollars and Thirty-five Cents ( $1,956.35).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Bill of Costs (Doc. No. 95) is DENIED as
MOOT.

/s/ Terry I. Adelman
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this

29th

day of July , 2013.

2