United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Western Division
DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before the court on Defendant's Bill of Costs
(Doc. # 117) and Plaintiff's Opposition to
Defendant's Bill of Costs (Doc. # 120). The Bill of Costs
is now ripe for review. For the reasons explained below,
Plaintiff's objections to the Bill of Costs are due to be
sustained in part and overruled in part.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, a prevailing party may
recover the costs of litigation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). The
categories of taxable costs include clerk and marshal fees,
“[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded
transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case, ”
witness and printing fees, copying fees for materials
necessarily obtained for use in the case, docket fees, and
certain expert and interpretation fees. 28 U.S.C. §
1920. “The presumption is in favor of awarding
costs.” Arcadian Fertilizer, L.P. v. MPW Indus.
Servs., Inc., 249 F.3d 1293, 1296 (11th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff must overcome the presumption that Defendant is
entitled to an award of costs. Crouch v. Teledyne
Cont'l Motors, Inc., 2013 WL 203408, at *2 (S.D.
Ala. Jan. 17, 2013).
costs incurred, in whole or part, for use in a case are
recoverable under § 1920(2). E.E.O.C. v. W&O,
Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 620-21 (11th Cir. 2000). But,
deposition costs incurred for convenience, thorough
preparation, or investigation are not recoverable under
§ 1920(2). Id. at 620. In particular, costs
associated with depositions submitted in support of summary
judgment typically are recoverable. Id. at 621.
“[W]hen a party notices a deposition to be recorded by
nonstenographic means, or by both stenographic and
nonstenographic means, and no objection is raised at that
time by the other party to the method of recordation . . .,
it is appropriate under § 1920 to award the cost of
conducting the deposition in the manner noticed.”
Morrison v. Reichhold Chems., Inc., 97 F.3d 460,
464-65 (11th Cir. 1996).
of information contained in a file is not a prerequisite to
finding that it was necessary to copy the file.”
W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d at 623 (quoting Cengr v.
Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 455 (7th Cir.
1998)). Instead, the court must examine “whether the
prevailing party could have reasonably believed that it was
necessary to copy the papers at issue.” Id.
Importantly, although copies made pursuant to discovery
requests are recoverable, id., general copying costs
are not recoverable under § 1920. Duckworth v.
Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393, 1399 (11th Cir. 1996). A party
seeking an award of copying costs is responsible for
explaining how the photocopies were used. Crouch,
2013 WL 203408, at *2.
Analysis of Plaintiff's Objections
Bill of Costs, Defendant asks the court to tax the following
costs to Plaintiff:
1. Fees for printed and electronically recorded transcripts
in the amount of $9, 924.56;
2. Witness fees in the amount of $70.78; and
3. Copying and exemplification fees in the amount of $3,
(Doc. # 117 at 1). Plaintiff objects to all of these
argues that Defendant's requested transcript fees are
excessive because: (1) Defendant ordered two of the
transcripts for next day delivery; (2) other transcripts were
expedited; (3) Defendant requested condensed copies of
certain transcripts; (4) Defendant requested deposition disks
and exhibit copies for certain depositions; (5) Defendant
paid charges for postage and shipping of the transcripts
where electronic delivery was available; (6) Defendant paid
for an exhibit binder and tabs in connection with one
deposition; and (7) Defendant paid fees for synchronizing
video depositions (See Doc. # 120 at 3-4). Notably,
Plaintiff has not argued that the depositions of John
Brandon, Gina Chaney, Tina Rezakhani, Matthew Manlove, Landy
Massey, and herself were unnecessary for the case. (See
id.). Because portions of all seven depositions were
submitted with Defendant's Motion ...