Opinion
02 C 3441
November 18, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on Defendant Exelon Generation Co.'s ("Exelon") request for a bill of costs for fees associated with depositions, transcripts, and copies of documents associated with their case. For the reasons set forth below, we grant Exelon's request.
The facts of this case and the basis for our grant of summary judgment to Exelon are set forth in our earlier opinion. Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., 2003 WL 22169761 (N.D. Ill. 2003).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) allows a court to tax costs other than attorneys' fees in favor of a prevailing party. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, recoverable costs include: (1) fees of the clerk, (2) fees for transcripts, (3) fees for printing and witnesses, (4) fees for copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case, (5) docket fees, and (6) compensation for court-appointed experts and interpreters. A prevailing party enjoys the presumption that costs will be awarded. See M.T. Bonk Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., 945 F.2d 1404, 1409-10 (7th Cir. 1991). This presumption is difficult for the losing party to overcome, and a court must award costs unless it can state good reasons for not doing so.Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997). However, we must also determine whether the costs are allowable and reasonable both in their amount and their necessity to the litigation. Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Systems. Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 454 (7th Cir. 1998).
In this case, Exelon seeks recovery of $6,367.80 for two categories of costs: copying costs and transcript costs relating to depositions. Both are specifically allowed by the statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (2)-(4); Cengr, 135 F.3d at 454. The depositions taken were that of the plaintiff and key witnesses. They seem necessary to the development of Exelon's case and reasonable in cost. Moreover, Exelon's itemization of copy costs demonstrates that the copied documents (motions, statements of undisputed facts, notices, and the like) were directly related to the litigation. We conclude that Exelon's request for costs is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
In addition, it appears that the parties have tentatively agreed to Exelon's request for $6,367.80, further demonstrating that the figure is reasonable. A letter from Plaintiff's counsel to counsel for Exelon, filed with this court and dated October 28, 2003, asserts that the parties agree that Exelon will be paid the full $6,367.80 in two equal installments, the first of which is due thirty days from the entry of this order and the second installment being due thirty days thereafter. While this court has not received any further confirmation of this agreement, we have seen no indication that Exelon takes issue with the terms of Plaintiff s proposal.
For the foregoing reasons, Exelon's motion for a bill of costs is granted. At this time, Plaintiff Michael Cichon is ordered to pay costs in the amount of $6,367.80.