Motion To Tax Costs
Motion To Tax Costs
MARCTEC, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
I. Introduction
which Plaintiff has responded in opposition (Doc. 186) and Defendants have replied
(Doc. 199). Defendants move pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(d)
and LOCAL RULE 54.2. Initially, Defendants sought an Order awarding their taxable
costs in the total amount of $80,625.81. Defendants submitted their bill of costs,
showing the categorical breakdown for their expenses, along with the appropriate
declaration and supporting documentation. Plaintiff objects to several cost items for
which Defendants seek reimbursement, arguing that the Court should reduce the
Page 1 of 9
remainder of the taxable costs sought by Defendants are improper and non-taxable.
In their Reply, Defendants concede that some of the objections raised by Plaintiff
have merit and thus, in an effort “to avoid unnecessary disputes,” reduces its request
for an award of costs by $20,642.55, thereby amending the total amount sought to
sought, the Court will only address those costs which remain in dispute.
the Court will also follow the guidance provided by its own Local Civil Rule 54.2
1
28 U.S.C. § 1920 Taxation of Costs, states in pertinent part:
A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the
following:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic
transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained
for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of
interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special
interpretation services under
section 1828 of this title.
A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the
judgment or decree.
2
Civ. L .R. 54.2states:
Not all trial expenses are taxable as costs. Only those items authorized by law may
be taxed as costs. Costs shall be taxed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that costs (other than attorneys'
fees) should be allowed to the prevailing party, unless a federal statute, rule, or court order
otherwise directs. Rule 54(d)(1) further provides that such costs may be taxed by the Clerk
of Court "on 14 days’ notice." Opposing counsel will be allowed 14 days (from the date notice
is given by the Clerk) in which to file any objections. If no objections are filed within the 14
day period, the Clerk of Court will tax the appropriate costs. If objections are timely filed,
the matter will be reviewed and resolved by the presiding judge.
Page 2 of 9
court’s discretion to determine which costs Defendants seek fall within the ambit
specifically recognized by law and whether these claimed expenses are also
Co., 657 F.2d 855, 863-64 (7th Cir. 1981). A separate analysis will be conducted
of each category of Defendants’ claimed costs to determine whether they are properly
183):
Defendants have now amended their request to seek an award for the
Page 3 of 9
Reviewing Plaintiff’s objections with Defendants’ amended request for
taxable costs, the Parties are in agreement as to the $440.00 sought for witness fees
and the $4,011.73 sought for “other costs.” What remains in dispute is the amount
exemplification/copying fees.
taxed for court reporter fees. In fact, this amount is the maximum Plaintiff believes
should be taxed regarding any fees for court reporters and deposition transcripts.
Defendants, on the other hand, also seek to have their costs for obtaining expedited
a. Expedited Transcripts
Defendants have agreed to limit their request for costs for expedited
Batich, Dr. Denardo and Dr. Sojka, totaling $1,540.00 (Doc. 199, p. 4). Defendants
explain the need for the expedited processing and delivery fees for these particular
depositions were because they occurred within one week of the close of expert
discovery and shortly before the due date for all dispositive motions and their reply
their time to review the transcripts if they had not been expedited would have been
Page 4 of 9
limited (Id.). Although ordinarily expedited costs are not taxable, when it becomes
necessary due to the discovery deadlines and the Parties’ actions in the course of
litigation, a court may allow reimbursement. The Court find Defendants’ reason for
as part of the ordinary course of this litigation, and therefore will not strike this
taxable amount for the expedited processing and delivery fees for the three
b. Videotaped Depositions
Defendants have not made a showing that videotaping the depositions were
“reasonable and necessary” to the litigation nor did they use the videotaped
depositions during the litigation (Doc. 186, p. 6). Defendants first assert that it is
not required that depositions be actually used in the summary judgment motion or
at trial to be “necessary” and thus, taxable, citing to a previous opinion issued by this
Court (Doc. 199, p. 1). Next, Defendants offer the Seventh Circuit opinion of Little
v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., 514 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2008), for
their position that now, expenses for both the video recording and transcripts of
depositions can be recovered by the prevailing party (Doc. 199, p. 2). Lastly,
Page 5 of 9
videotaped all of the depositions it took in this case. Along those lines, Defendants
also assert that the related expenses are reasonably necessary as “videotaped
depositions are not readily usable during a trial unless the videotape is synchronized
with the transcript and converted to a readily usable format” (Doc. 199, p. 2).
While the Court agrees that Little has found it proper to allow both the
transcript, the Court still believes that the holding Little did not omit the
to have actually used the depositions to prevail on the claims construction and
subsequent summary judgments, it must show that at the time of taking the
Bonk Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., 945 F.2d 1404, 1410 (7th Cir. 1991). As Judge
Reagan held in Jackson v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 07-450, 2008 WL
5244846 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2008) (Reagan, J.), this Court believes the better
approach is to maintain the requirement that Defendants show how the depositions
were reasonably necessary at the time they were taken (considering the facts then
is not enough to merely claim justification because the other Party videotaped theirs
Page 6 of 9
Defendants’ request for the taxation in the amount of $22,610.75 is stricken. As
such, the only taxable costs associated with depositions will be the agreed-upon
amount of $23,280.78 plus the amount of $1,540.00, incurred for the three
Technologies for “Trial Site Manager” (Doc. 183, Ex. 2). Plaintiff objects to this cost,
arguing that although the statute and rules allow for costs regarding copying and
expense was reasonably necessary (Doc. 186, pp. 8-9). Defendants contend that this
expense was incurred for the preparation and presentment of its graphics during the
Markman hearing (Doc. 199, pp. 2-3). While Plaintiff characterizes this computer-
reimbursed for such multi-media presentations displayed to the Court, citing Cefalu
v. Village of Elk Grove, 211 F.3d 416, 429 (7th Cir. 2000) in support. They
believe the statute and rules allow for litigants to take advantage of technological
advances Further, Defendants contend the presentation was “reasonable and well-
suited to the facts of this case.” Lastly, Defendants explain that they are unable to
offer a more comprehensive breakdown of this expense, as that is all their third
Page 7 of 9
exemplification. Regarding Defendants’ slide show presentation for the Markman
hearing, the Court believes that providing an effective presentation of the matter
during a hearing (or at trial) in order to aid the fact finder is a reasonable necessity.
In fact, the undersigned’s web page encourages parties to fully utilize the courtroom’s
words, the statute and rules do not only encourage the archaic means of trying a case
if a party elects to do otherwise, as long as it is not deemed too over the top. In this
case, Defendants’ presentation was not mere “glitz” and as such, is properly taxable
Page 8 of 9
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES
IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 183). The following costs shall be
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ DavidRHer|do|
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 9 of 9