De Valentino v. Houston Independent School District
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 57 Objections to Bill of Costs. Taxable costs are assessed against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,316.00. (Signed by Judge Nancy F Atlas) Parties notified.(TDR, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
§
v.
§
§
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL §
DISTRICT,
§
Defendant.
§
January 24, 2020
David J. Bradley, Clerk
JESSICA DE VALENTINO,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-18-0393
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
By Memorandum and Order [Doc. # 52] and Final Judgment [Doc. # 53]
entered January 6, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant
Houston Independent School District (“HISD”). On January 14, 2020, HISD filed its
Bill of Costs [Doc. # 54], seeking to recover $1,316.00 for the original and one copy
of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript. Plaintiff filed Objections [Doc. # 57]. Having
reviewed the record and applicable legal authorities, the Court overrules the
Objections and awards HISD $1,316.00 in taxable costs.
Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “costs -- other
than attorneys’ fees -- should be allowed to the prevailing party” unless the court
directs otherwise. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d). By statute, federal courts may award only
those costs itemized in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, absent explicit statutory or contractual
authorization to the contrary. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S.
P:\ORDERS\11-2018\0393Costs.wpd
200124.1441
437, 444-45 (1987); Gagnon v. United Technisource, Inc., 607 F.3d 1036, 1045 (5th
Cir. 2010); Mota v. Univ. of Texas Houston Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512, 529 (5th
Cir. 2001). The Court is to give “careful scrutiny” to the items proposed by the
prevailing party. See Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 335
(5th Cir. 1995); Serling v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 237 F. App’x 972, 976 (5th Cir. Aug. 3,
2007). The Court has authority to consider the necessity and reasonableness of the
costs requested. See, e.g., Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118
F.3d 245, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1997); Ernst v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 122 F. App’x 722,
723 (5th Cir. 2004); Javeler Marine Servs. LLC v. Cross, 175 F. Supp. 3d 756, 760
(S.D. Tex. 2016).
HISD seeks to recover the $1,316.00 cost of the original and one copy of the
transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff objects that the requested amount is
excessive, not justified, and inadequately itemized.1 “Fees for printed or electronically
recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case” are recoverable as
1
Plaintiff argues also that the Court should “consider that most Plaintiffs are persons
of very limited incomes.” Objections, p. 1. Inability to pay may be considered in
some instances, such as where the plaintiff is “of such modest means that it would be
an injustice or inequitable” to award costs. See Javeler, 175 F. Supp. 3d at 760 (citing
Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997); Cherry
v. Champion Int’l Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 447 (4th Cir. 1999); Weaver v. Toombs, 948
F.2d 1004, 1008 (6th Cir. 1991)). Plaintiff has presented no evidence that she is of
such modest means. Indeed, she did not seek in forma pauperis status in this case and
paid the filing fee in full.
P:\ORDERS\11-2018\0393Costs.wpd
200124.1441
2
taxable costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2); United States ex rel King v. Solvay Pharm., Inc.,
871 F.3d 318, 335 (5th Cir. 2017); Mota, 261 F.3d at 530. The “costs of making
copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case”
are also recoverable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). “If, at the time it was taken, a
deposition could reasonably be expected to be used for trial preparation, rather than
merely for discovery, it may be included in the costs of the prevailing party.”
Fogleman v. ARAMCO (Arabian Am. Oil Co.), 920 F.2d 278, 285 (5th Cir. 1991). A
deposition transcript may be “necessarily obtained for use in the case” even if its is
not introduced at trial. See id.; Delgado v. Alamo Cmty. Coll. Dist., 2019 WL
1772317, *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2019).
In this case, the Court finds that HISD obtained the original and one copy of the
transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition for use in the case. It was attached to and cited in
HISD’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The cost of the original and one copy of the
deposition transcript was justified and not excessive. Plaintiff’s objection that the
request for costs is “inadequately itemized” because HISD failed to present evidence
regarding the number of pages of the transcript is overruled. As noted, the complete
transcript is attached as Exhibit 2 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. # 27]. The transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony is 135 pages, exclusive
of exhibits. The full transcript on the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) system,
P:\ORDERS\11-2018\0393Costs.wpd
200124.1441
3
in which four deposition pages are printed on one ECF page, is 176 pages including
the deposition exhibits. The requested transcripts cost of $1,316.00 is reasonable and
justified for use in the case. As a result, the cost is recoverable as a taxable cost under
§ 1920, and it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to Bill of Costs [Doc. # 57] are
OVERRULED. It is further
ORDERED that taxable costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 are
assessed against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,316.00.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 24th day of January, 2020.
NAN Y F. ATLAS
SENIOR UNI
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
P:\ORDERS\11-2018\0393Costs.wpd
200124.1441
4
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?