Opinion
99 C 5414
January 28, 2003
OPINION
On November 8, 2002, judgment was entered for Kemper following a jury trial, after which Kemper submitted a bill of costs in the amount of $15,463.28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d).
Plaintiff makes a number of objections and has requested that I reduce Kemper's request to $12,142.00. First, there is objection to the photocopying rate of $0.20 per page used by Kemper, which I agree is a little excessive. Based on what has been found reasonable in this jurisdiction, I am reducing the photocopying rate to $0.13 per page, which reduces Kemper's overall copying costs by $702.73, which reduces this request to $1,305.07. Next, plaintiff objects to reimbursing Kemper for making a third set of copies of the exhibits to keep at the office "just in case." Since there were two copies being used in the courtroom by what I believe to be responsible individuals, I agree that the cost of this third copy of exhibits is unnecessary, particularly in light of the voluminousness of these exhibits, the number of pages being 2,966 pages. Thus, I am reducing the copying costs by a further $593.20, which reduces Kemper's copying request to $711.87.
With respect to witness fees for Rita Quinn Dominguez and Dr. John Durburg, Kemper has agreed to reduce its request to $40 per person, which I accept. With respect to witness fees for William Simmons and Robert Smialek, Kemper indicates that the requested costs consist of witness and mileage fees and no service fees, and because I find the requested amounts to be reasonable, they will remain as requested. With respect to travel expenses for Kathy Hawkins, who was not permitted to testify at trial, I find that it is unreasonable for plaintiff to bear that cost, especially since Kemper was on notice of the likelihood that I would not allow Ms. Hawkins' testimony. Thus, I will reduce the total request for witness fees by $810.77.
As for costs incurred by Roddy Colcorde, plaintiff argues that she was "double-billed" because Mr. Colcorde took two trips to Chicago during the course of trial, the reason for the extra trip being Kemper's fault for not making him available to testify on October 25, 2002, due to miscalculation. However, correspondence between the parties shows that plaintiff asked for Mr. Colcorde to be available October 24, 2002, going over to the morning of October 25, 2002, to which Kemper agreed. Mr. Colcorde's flight out of Chicago on October 25 was scheduled to leave Chicago at 5:45 p.m., which indicates that Kemper did meet plaintiff's request. Therefore, I do not find that it was Kemper's fault that Mr. Colcorde had to return to Chicago on October 28 and 29. If memory serves, there were a number of contributing factors at trial that cannot be attributable to one party causing kinks in the witness order. Finally, plaintiff requests that I reduce Mr. Colcord's and Elizabeth Lindner-Tarjan's travel expenses because they are too excessive. I concur with plaintiff's objections in this regard and reduce Kemper's reimbursement for Mr. Colcorde and Ms. Lindner-Tarjan's travel expenses (excluding the $516.50 for Mr. Colcorde's October 28 flight to Chicago) by half, thus reducing those costs by $708.58.
Therefore, Kemper's bill of costs is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Kemper $12,599.00.