Laughlin-Denecke v. ITT Educational Services, Inc.

Filing 64

DECISION AND ORDER approving Defendant's 61 Bill of Costs in the amount of $3,477.02. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 5/9/2011. (CMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
W ESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JENNIFER L. LAUGHLIN-DENECKE,
Plaintiff,

DECISION AND ORDER
07-CV-745A

v.

ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

Pending before the Court is a bill of costs (Dkt. No. 61) that defendant filed
on April 22, 2011. Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 6, 2007 alleging
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17; the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101–12213; and New York’s Human Rights Law,
N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290–301. On March 18, 2009, defendant filed an amended
motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. On March 24,
2011, the Court adopted a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge
H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. and granted defendant’s motion. Defendant now
seeks $3,504.52 for deposition costs, witness fees, and copy costs for
attachments to papers in the case docket. Plaintiff does not dispute that a bill of
costs is appropriate, but contends that certain proposed costs cannot be
reimbursed and that the correct total is $2,233.20.

“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.”
FRCP 54(d)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (“A judge or clerk of any court of the
United States may tax as costs the following: (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for
use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees
for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the
copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; [and] (5) Docket fees under
section 1923 of this title.”). Plaintiff argues, without citation, that costs for
deposition postage and reporter service after 5:00 p.m. are not recoverable.
Plaintiff is correct that postage unrelated to the cost of service does not belong
in a bill of costs. See Byrne v. Telesector Res. Grp., Inc., No. 04-CV-0076S,
2010 WL 4340824, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2010) (Skretny, C.J.). The Court will
strike $27.50 in proposed costs accordingly. In contrast, the $75.00 of proposed
after-hours reporter costs are a subset of reporter costs permitted by statute,
and plaintiff has not cited to the contrary. Cf. SEIU v. Rosselli, No. C 09-00404,
2010 WL 4502176, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2010) (“[Defendants] object to a list
of items all found on court reporter invoices, among other charges: ‘rough disk’
fees, ‘expedited’ services charges, parking reimbursements, charges for court
reporter ‘waiting time,’ charges for court reporter ‘before/after hours,’ delivery
costs, appearance and travel fees, ‘video digitizing to DVD[s],’ and ‘video
2

synchronizing.’ All of the costs named by defendants are fees charged by court
reporters. They are therefore compensable as reasonably necessary for trial.”)
(emphasis added) (citation omitted). The Court will leave this item undisturbed.
Next, plaintiff objects, again without citation, to paying copying costs for
exhibits attached to discovery responses. “Copies attributable to discovery,
copies of pleadings, correspondence, documents tendered to the opposing
party, copies of exhibits, and documents prepared for the Court’s consideration
are recoverable.” Blickley v. Ford, No. 6:08–cv–1866–Orl–31GJK, 2011 WL
1376102, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 22, 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see also, e.g., Cornell v. Gubbles, No. 05-1389, 2010 WL 3937597, at
*5 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2010) (“Copying documents for production in discovery is
necessary and recoverable.”) (citation omitted). Especially since plaintiff has not
offered any contrary authority, the Court will leave these proposed costs
undisturbed as permissible costs attributable to discovery.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court approves defendant’s bill of
costs (Dkt. No. 61) in the amount of $3,477.02.
SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard J. Arcara
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: May 9, 2011
3