Eden v. Vaughan, et. al.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendants' Motion for Bill of Costs is hereby GRANTED. [ECF No. 112 ] Plaintiff shall pay Defendants' costs in the amount of $1,117.90. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 10/18/16. (EAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
RONALD VAUGHN, et al.,
Case No. 4:15CV00212 ERW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Ronald Vaughan and Kyle Chandler’s
Motion for Bill of Costs. [ECF No. 112].
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, “[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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). “A prevailing party is presumptively entitled to recover all of its
costs.” In re Derailment Cases, 417 F.3d 840, 844 (8th Cir.2005). “The losing party bears the
burden of overcoming the presumption that the prevailing party is entitled to costs ....“ 168th and
Dodge, LP v. Rave Reviews Cinemas, LLC, 501 F.3d 945, 958 (8th Cir.2007). If the opposing party
objects to the authorized costs, the Court may exercise its discretion to grant or deny costs.
Pershern v. Fiatallis North America, Inc., 834 F.2d 136, 140 (8th Cir.1987). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920, costs may be taxed for:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript
necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court 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 may not award costs other than those authorized by § 1920 because
this section “imposes rigid controls on cost-shifting in federal courts.” Brisco-Wade v. Carnahan,
297 F.3d 781, 782 (8th Cir.2002) (internal quotation omitted). Upon objection by the opposing
party as to authorized costs, however, the Court may exercise its discretion to grant or deny costs.
Pershern, 834 F.2d at 140.
Plaintiff in this case testified he was homeless and does not receive assistance from his
family or any other means. The Eighth Circuit has held that “a judgment for costs may be made at
the end of an [in forma pauperis] case as in any other case.” Scher v. Purkett, 62 F.3d 1421, *1 (8th
Cir.1995) (per curium). “A prevailing party may recover costs as a matter of course, if not
precluded by federal law, whether the unsuccessful party is fee-paying or indigent.” Jackson v.
Unknown Smith, 116 F.3d 480, *1 (8th Cir.1997) (per curium). However, the Eighth Circuit has
affirmed a trial court’s decision to award partial costs, because of a Plaintiff’s limited financial
resources. Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983).
The Court concludes Defendants are entitled to costs in this case. Costs are not excessive
and in accordance with the costs permitted by federal law. Defendants seek $61.20 for a copy of
Defendant Chandler’s deposition, $929.50 for deposition costs of Plaintiff, and $48.00 for a copy
of Adam Koeln’s, deposition transcript. Each of these witnesses testified in this case, and it was
reasonable and necessary for Defendants to have taken these depositions. Further, Plaintiff does
not object to any specific costs proposed by Defendants. These costs are enumerated under the
statute, and reasonable, and therefore it is appropriate for Plaintiff to pay such costs.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendants’ Motion for Bill of Costs is hereby GRANTED.
[ECF No. 112] Plaintiff shall pay Defendants’ costs in the amount of $1,117.90.
So Ordered this 18th Day of October, 2016.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR 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?