Nowlin v. Terminix Service Inc et al

Filing 69

ORDER re: 65 Bill of Costs. Defendants are awarded costs in the amount of $1879.00,which represents the fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts needed for use in this case. These costs shall be included in the judgment of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 05/04/2018.(dsto)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Christopher Nowlin,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Terminix Services, Inc., John Stroman,
)
and Larry Parker,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-00371-RBH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for an Award of Costs filed by Defendants
Terminix Service, Inc., John Stroman, and Larry Parker (“Defendants”). [ECF #60]. Plaintiff
Christopher Nowlin (“Plaintiff”) filed the above-caption suit against Defendants, alleging violations
of racial harassment and discrimination, retaliation in the workplace and wrongful termination, as
well as several related state law claims. On March 28, 2018, this Court granted summary judgment
in favor of Defendants on their federal claims and dismissed their state law claims without prejudice.
[ECF #58]. The Clerk accordingly entered judgment for Defendants that same day. Defendants filed
their Bill of Costs on April 3, 2018 requesting costs totaling $2,233.00. Plaintiff filed numerous
objections to the Bill of Costs. Defendants responded to the objections with an amended Bill of
Costs, to which Plaintiff filed additional objections.
Discussion
Defendants’ Bill of Costs includes fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts that
were obtained for use in the case. [ECF #60-1, p. 2]. In his objections, Plaintiff objects to the
Defendants’ Bill of Costs in its entirety. [ECF #62; ECF #63]. Plaintiff specifically objects to “a
hearing transcript” that Plaintiff alleges was not presented to the Court, and thus argues Defendants

are not entitled to the cost of $354.00 associated with that transcript. It appears that Plaintiff is
referring to a bill received on June 30, 2016 from Creel Court Reporting, Inc. for an employment
hearing held in this matter. In response, Defendants filed an Amended Motion, withdrawing their
request for the costs associated with that hearing transcript. [ECF #65]. In the Amended Motion,
Defendants now seek $1,879.00, with this total amount representing the costs associated with fees
for printed or electronically recorded transcripts. In response, Plaintiff again renewed his objection
that the requests for costs be denied because he states that he presented viable causes of action
against the Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that he presented evidence of fault and
misconduct on the part of Defendants with respect to allegations of forgery and termination. [ECF
#67].
Prevailing parties are entitled to an award of costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(d)(1), which provides: “[e]xcept when express provision therefor is made either in a
statute of the United States or in these rules, costs . . . shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing
party unless the court otherwise directs.” The rule makes clear that, in the ordinary course, a
prevailing party is entitled to an award of costs and there exists a presumption to that effect. Cherry
v. Champion Intl. Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 446 (4th Cir. 1999). “To overcome the presumption, a
district court ‘must justify its decision [to deny costs] by ‘articulating some good reason for doing
so.’” Id. (citing Teague v. Bakker, 35 F.3d 978, 996 (4th Cir. 1994)). The expenses which may be
taxed are listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Local Civil Rule 54.03. The District of South Carolina
Local Rule 54.03 provides that a bill of costs may include “all items set forth in the relevant statutes
and rules and is subject to final approval by the court.” Plaintiff has not pointed to any federal
statute or rule that does not allow Defendants to recover the costs for the transcripts in this case.

2

Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) permits a court to tax as costs “fees for printed or electronically
recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case” and 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) permits “the
costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the
case.”
The transcript invoices do not appear to distinguish between the original and the copy as they
list a single charge for “original and one copy” of a transcript or include a copy in the price listed
for the transcript. Further, Plaintiff cites to no authority for the proposition that the Court should
carve out an amount it believes represents the charge for the copy versus the original transcript.
Additionally, the copies referenced by Plaintiff would have been necessarily obtained for use in the
case had this case gone to trial. Original deposition transcripts typically remains sealed until trial,
meaning that a copy would typically be the only means by which a party could review a deposition
transcript. The Court will therefore allow the costs for these transcripts in the total amount
requested, as it finds that the transcripts were necessarily obtained for use in this case.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendants are awarded costs in the amount of $1879.00,
which represents the fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts needed for use in this
case. These costs shall be included in the judgment of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Court Judge
May 4, 2018
Florence, South Carolina

3