Glickert et al v. The Loop Trolley Transportation Development District, et al.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 124 Amended MOTION for Bill of Costs filed by Defendant The Loop Trolley Transportation Development District, 123 MOTION for Bill of Costs filed by Defendant The Loop Trolley Transportation Development District motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 6/16/14. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ELSIE BECK GLICKERT, et al.
THE LOOP TROLLEY
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT )
DISTRICT, et al.
No. 4:13cv2170 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Currently pending before the Court is defendant Loop Trolley Transportation
Development District’s Bill of Costs. The defendant’s first Bill of Costs was filed on May 13,
2014 and sought $118.50 in printing costs for “Outside Photocopy Service expense on 11/12/13
for copies from the St. Louis County Circuit Court (copying charges)” (#123). The defendant’s
second Bill of Costs was also filed on May 13 and sought $532.80 in printing costs (#124). The
second Bill of Costs adds to the first Bill a charge for “Document Reproduction Copying Fees
(4,143 pages) (copying charges).”
Plaintiff objects to the imposition of costs because the Bill fails to demonstrate that the
amount it seeks was for “copies . . . necessarily obtained for use in the case,” 28 U.S.C. §
1920(4). “In determining whether a photocopy expense is necessary so as to be taxable as a cost
and whether to award that cost to the prevailing party, the district court enjoys discretion so long
as it does not act arbitrarily.” Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 309 F.3d 494, 498 (8th
Cir. 2002). However,
plaintiffs may not recover the photocopy expenses that they incurred in copying
their own pleadings and motions for filing with the Court, serving on opposing
counsel, or transmitting to their client; nor does the cost statute cover a party’s
copying of documents to be produced in discovery, or copying research materials
for the convenience of counsel. These are not taxable costs under the statute,
because they are not necessarily obtained for use in the case.
Emmenegger v. Bull Moose Tube Co., 33 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1133 (E.D.Mo. 1998) (internal
quotations omitted); see also Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 4:08CV01534 ERW,
2014 WL 107844 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2014).
As for the first charge, $118.50 “copies from the St. Louis County Circuit Court,”
plaintiff points out that the defendant’s law firm was involved in the only action in the St. Louis
County Circuit Court that bears on any issue in this case. The reason for requiring an outside
copy service to make copies for that case is therefor puzzling. Nor is it clear how those copies
were necessary for use in the case.
As for the second charge, $414.30 for “Document Reproduction Copying Fees (4,143
pages) (copying charges),” it is similarly unclear as to how those copies were necessary for use
in the case. Defendant included an affidavit in support of its Bills of Costs, but the affidavit
states only that the costs were “necessarily incurred in the case.” That does not go to the
statutory requirement that the copies be “necessarily obtained for use in the case,” 28 U.S.C. §
1920(4) (emphasis added).
Notably, defendant has not filed a memorandum replying to plaintiff’s objection or
otherwise explaining its Bill of Costs. Because defendant has not shown that the costs it seeks
were for copies “necessarily obtained for use in the case,” id., the Bill of Costs will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Loop Trolley Transportation Development
District’s Bill of Costs is DENIED.
Dated this 16th
day of June, 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?