Swindell v. CACI NSS, Inc.

Filing 125

ORDER granting 116 Motion for Bill of Costs; denying 121 Motion for Disallowance of Costs. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 5/1/2023. (Mann, Stephanie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:17-CV-617-D
CHRISTOPHER SWINDELL,

)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.
CACI NSS, INC., and QUICK SERVICES
LLC,
Defendants.

ORDER ON BILL OF COSTS

)
)
)

)
)
)

This matter is before the clerk on the motion for bill of costs filed by defendant CACI
NSS, Inc. [DE-116]. Plaintiff Christopher Swindell has filed a motion for disallowance of costs
[DE-121] to which defendant has responded in opposition [DE-123]. For the reasons set forth
below, the motion for bill of costs [DE-116] is GRANTED and the motion for disallowance [DE121] is DENIED.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in this court on December 14, 2017
[DE-1]. On September 30, 2020, the Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment
[DE-96] and entered judgment in favor of defendant [DE-97]. 1 Thereafter, defendant filed a
motion for bill of costs [DE-98]. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal [DE-105], a motion to stay
consideration of the motion of bill of costs [DE-106], and a response in opposition to the motion
of bill of costs [DE-107]. On December 30, 2020, the Court denied the motion for bill of costs

.

'

1

The other defendant, Quick Services, Inc., also obtained summary judgment. The clerk limits the discussion of the
procedural history to defendant CACI NESS, Inc.

Case 5:17-cv-00617-D Document 125 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 3

[DE-98] without prejudice, stating that defendant may file a new motion if the judgment was
affirmed on appeal.
On August 30, 2022, the Fourth Cir<;uit affirmed this court's judgment [DE-114]. On
September 13, 2022, defendant filed the instant motion for bill of costs [DE-116].
DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks costs under Rule 54(d)(l) as the prevailing party in this action. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(d)(l) ("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."). Federal courts
may assess only those costs listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Arlington Cent. Sch. Bd. of Educ. v.
Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 301 (2006); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437,
441-42 (1987), superseded on other grounds by statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Local Civil Rule 54.1
"further refines the scope of recoverable costs." Earp v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No.
5:1 l-CV-680-D, 2014 WL 4105678, at *l (E.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 2014). Specifically, defendant
seeks recovery of $3,676.85 in costs from plaintiff for fees for the transcripts necessarily
obtained for use in the case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §.1920(2).
Plaintiff does not dispute that defendant is the prevailing party, or that all transcripts were
necessarily obtained for use in the case. Plaintiff does, however, contend that a portion of the
costs sought by defendant must be disallowed. Specifically, plaintiff contends that defendant's
request for costs impermissibly includes charges for both the original transcripts and copies of
the transcripts of the depositions of plaintiff and William Malave. Local Civil Rule 54.1 (c)(1 )(a)
specifies that the costs incident to the taking of depositions normally only include the reporter's
fee and the charge for the original transcript of the deposition. Plaintiff argues that because the
supporting invoices for the depositions of plaintiff and Malave do not identify the cost of the

2

Case 5:17-cv-00617-D Document 125 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 3

original transcript and the cost of the copy, the request of costs as to those transcripts should be
disallowed in its entirety.
In response, defendant proffers the declaration of Ken Daniels, the Vice-President of the
company that provided court reporting services for the depositions of plaintiff and Malave [DE123-1]. Therein, Daniels declares the fees on the invoice represent charges for the transcription
of the deposition, the sealed original transcript, and one electronic copy [DE-123-1

~

3-4]. Daniel

specifies the fee is the same with or without an electronic copy. Id. Given this information, the
motion for disallowance [DE-121] is DENIED and the motion for bill of costs [DE-116] is
GRANTED. Costs in the amount of$3,676.85 for fees for the transcripts necessarily obtained for
use in the case are taxed against plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for bill of costs [DE-116] is GRANTED and the
motion for disallowance [DE-121] is DENIED. Costs in the amount of $3,676.85 are taxed
against plaintiff Christopher Swindell in favor of Defendant CACI NSS, Inc. and shall be
included in the judgment.

SO ORDERED. This the l_ day of May, 2023.

prtt:;~~
Clerk of Court

3
Case 5:17-cv-00617-D Document 125 Filed 05/01/23 Page 3 of 3