Primrose v. Castle Branch, Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 49 Motion for Bill of Costs. Defendant Castle Branch, Inc., as the prevailing party, is awarded $1,424.00 in deposition transcript costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and these costs are taxed against plaintiff and shall be included in the judgment. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 8/15/2017. (Briggeman, N.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:14-CV-235-D CLAIRE H. PRIMROSE, Plaintiff, v. CASTLE BRANCH, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I ORDER ON BILL OF COSTS I This matter is before the clerk on the motion for bill of costs [DE-49] filed by defenuant Castle Branch, Inc. Plaintiff failed to file any objections or a motion for disallowance J , Jsts, I I I , and the time for doing so has expired. See Local Civil Rule 54.1 (b)(1). The matter is theref~re ~ipe I I for determination. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for bill of costs is granted in p~rt. I i DISCUSSION I I On January 3, 2017, the court granted defendant's motion for summaryJ"udgment [DE;47] ! I and entered judgment in favor of defendant [DE-38]. Defendant timely filed a motion fot bill of i ! costs [DE-49] on January 17, 2017. 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 oietse, 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 Jdub. v. Mw;phy, 548 U.S. 291, 30 I (2006); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 4, 7, r4142 (1987), superseded on other grounds by statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Local Civil Rule :54.1 , : I "further refines the scope ofrecoverable costs." Earp v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Gorp., Np. 5:11! I CV-680-D, 2014 WL 4105678, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 2014). In this case, defendanj s9eks I recovery of $2,354.00 in deposition costs from plaintiff. "Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for usi inlthe case" may be taxed as costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). As part of its request for costs, defendant submits court reporter invoices for the depositions of plaintiff and Dr. Anne Potts. The dep~sitljion transcripts were cited by defendant its motion for summary judgment filings, and accordinkly, the I clerk finds that the transcripts were necessarily obtained for use in the case. The court reporter invoice for the deposition of plaintiff includes charges for videography [DE-49-2]. In order to recover the costs of both the court reporter and a videographer, a parb lust demonstrate that both recordings were "necessarily obtained for use in the case." cJerrl v. Champion Int'! Com., 186 F.3d 442, 449 (4th Cir. 1999). Defendant has provided no expl~~ion as to why videography was necessary for this deposition. Accordingly, its request for $83!0.00 in costs for video services for the deposition of plaintiff is disallowed. 1 1 i Additionally, the invoices includes charges for shipping and handling and deliverr fees, none of which are taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and Local Civil Rule 54.l(c)(l)la)j See I Fulmore v. United Parcel Service, 7:11-CV-18-F, 2013 WL 5969715, at* 1 (E.D.NC. Nov 18, I 2013) (disallowing costs for an expedited transcript, shipping and handling, and electronic lelrery of transcripts) Hexion v. Specialty Chems., Inc. v. Oak-Bark Corp., No. 7:09-CV-105-ID, '.2012 WL 2458638, at *6 (E.D.N.C. June 27, 2012) (denying costs for shipping and postage). Tle Lsts for these items in the amount of $100.00 are disallowed, and defendant is awarded the reLJnder of $1,424.00 in costs for printed transcripts. I I 2 CONCLUSION I In summary, the motion for bill of costs [DE-49] is allowed in part. Defendant iCastle Branch, Inc., as the prevailing party, is awarded $1,424.00 in deposition transcript costs pLL1 ! I to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and these costs are taxed against plaintiff and shall be included! in the i judgment. SO ORDERED. This the _.LL day of August, 2017. eter A. Moore, Jr. Clerk of Court 3

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?