Tu v. U-Haul Co of South Carolina Inc et al

Filing 114

ORDER granting 105 Motion for Taxation of Costs. Costs taxed in the amount of $ $4,996.66. against the Plaintiff, Kueilin Lu Tu. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 3/5/2021.(vdru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Kueilin Lu Tu,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
U-Haul Co. of North Carolina, and
)
Shawn Smith,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No. 2:18-cv-734-MBS
ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Notice and Motion for Taxation
ECF No. 105, filed by Defendant U-Haul Co. of
U-Haul Co. of South Carolina, Inc.

of this Order, the court will

refer to collectively as Defendants. Plaintiff Kueilin Lu Tu filed a response in opposition, ECF
No. 112, to which Defendants filed a reply, ECF No. 113.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit in state court and, following removal to this court, asserted
two causes of action in the operative pleadi
Supervision and Training

1

UHNC moved for summary judgment on

the bases that 1) Plaintiff was solely at fault in the accident that led to this lawsuit; 2) UHNC is the
victim of a crime and cannot be liable for the actions of its co-defendant, Shawn Smith; and 3)
there is no legal duty and no evidence to support the claim that UHNC negligently hired,
supervised, and trained Smith. ECF No. 79. The court granted the motion in an order dated August
28, 2020, ECF No. 103, and entered judgment in favor of UHNC the same day, ECF No. 104.

1

Plaintiff initially named UHSC as the corporate defendant, ECF No. 1-1, and subsequently
amended her complaint to substitute UHNC for UHSC, ECF No. 25.

Plaintiff thereafter filed a contested motion for reconsideration, ECF Nos. 106, 109, which the
court denied in an order dated October 29, 2020, ECF No. 110. Defendants now move as the
prevailing party for an award of costs.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that with exceptions not applicable here,
the court should allow the prevailing party to recover costs other than
P. 54(d)(1). Section 1920 of Title 28 of the United States Code enumerates allowable costs as
follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Fees of the clerk and marshal;
Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained
for use in the case;
Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials
where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;
Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
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 party claiming any item of cost must support the request by attaching
thereto an affidavit attesting that the items requested are correct and that the cost has been
ices for which fees have been charged were
28 U.S.C. § 1924. There is a presumption that the prevailing
party in a lawsuit will be able to collect costs, and once the prevailing party makes a showing that
taxation of costs is proper, the burden shifts to the losing party to show otherwise. Cherry v.
Champion Int'l Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 446 (4th Cir. 1999). Th
its discretion to deny the prevailing party its costs. Teague v. Bakker,
35 F.3d 978, 996 (4th Cir. 1994). See Jeter v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. CV 7:15-1458-TMC, 2017
WL 5593296, at *2 (D.S.C. Mar. 28, 2017) (articulating the following factors as potential good
reasons that justify denying an award of costs

evailing party; (2) the

2

) the excessiveness of the costs in a particular
case; (4) the limited value of the

y; or (5) the closeness and difficulty of

Defendants seek costs in the amount of $4,996.66 for the following expenditures: state and
federal court filing fees; witness and mileage fees; deposition transcripts; and interpreter fees. ECF
No. 105-2. For support, Defendants attach to their motion the affidavit of attorney Jay T.
Thompson, who acted as their counsel in this case, and offer invoices corresponding to their list
of costs, several of which are redacted. See
satisfy the Federal Rules governing an award of costs and Plaintiff carries the burden to show that
reimbursement would be improper.2
In her response, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
sts and otherwise opposes the request on the
following myriad bases:
The State Court Motion for Summary Judgment was not granted and therefore the
$25.00 reimbursement should be denied. The Motion fee for the Consent
Confidentiality Order should also be denied as there were no secret or sensitive
materials exchanged during discovery; th
s pro hoc vice admission; it was merely
file anything related to this matter
with the Court and his signature appears only on the agreement made in
Mecklenburg County Detention Center with co-Defendant Shawn Smith, wherein
Defendant promises to forego criminal prosecution of Mr. Smith in exchange for
an affidavit as to his residency.
ECF No. 112. Plaintiff also disputes the accuracy of the costs associated with six deposition
transcripts. Id.

nt is a large corporation that can easily

2

See Local Civ. Rule

54.03 (D.S.C.).
3

bear the cost of this
to penalize her by ordering reimbursement of costs. Id.
In reply, Defendants represent that the only information redacted from the exhibits is
by the law firm, and it is irreleva
ECF No. 113 at 2. Defendants further assert that recovery of fees is not
a confidentiality order, is necessary, nor is it
conditioned on the outcome of a ruling on a specific motion. Id. As to deposition transcripts,
Defendants state that their invoices reflect a higher fee than
Defendants requested and paid for the original, sealed transcripts. Id. at 3.
The court is satisfied that Defendants seek reimbursement for costs associated with filings,
witness appearances, and deposition transcripts that were reasonably necessary to the case and
finds that these costs are allowable and reasonable. The court further finds that Plaintiff has not
presented a good reason for denying an award of those costs.
for Taxation of Costs, ECF No. 105, is granted. The Clerk shall tax costs against Plaintiff in the
amount of $4,996.66.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Margaret B. Seymour
Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
March 4, 2021
Charleston, South Carolina

4