Summary
awarding costs to defendant who was granted summary judgment on federal claims and had supplemental state law claims dismissed without prejudice
Summary of this case from Woodward v. City of GallatinOpinion
CASE NO. 5:01CV1137
October 23, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On August 26, 2002, the Court granted Defendant Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing Plaintiff's Title VII failure to promote retaliation claims with prejudice, and Plaintiff's state law claims without prejudice. See ECF Dkt. #69. On October 2, 2002, ODYS filed a motion for costs. See ECF Dkt. #71.
I. MOTION'S REQUEST
In the instant motion, ODYS requests the Court to grant its motion for costs and award it the attached bill of costs in the amount of $4,506.53. See ECF Dkt. #71, attachments 2-4. ODYS seeks $4,415.98 for the transcribed deposition testimony of twelve witnesses, and $90.55 for copying costs of exhibits attached to its motion for summary judgment. See id. Plaintiff did not respond to ODYS' motion for costs. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS ODYS' motion for costs and awards ODYS the costs contained in its bill of costs totaling $4,506.53. See ECF Dkt. #71.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
District courts enjoy wide discretion in determining and awarding reasonable costs under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Northbrook Excess and Surplus Ins. Co. v. Procter Gamble Co., 924 F.2d 633, 642 (7th Cir. 1991). Rule 54(d)(1) provides that " costs other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) (emphasis added). This language "creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs, but allows denial of costs at the discretion of the trial court." White White, Inc. v. American Hosp. Supply Corp., 786 F.2d 728, 730 (6th Cir. 1986). Sections 1920(2) and 1920(4) of Title 28 of the United States Code provide that the Court can tax as costs, among other items, "[f]ees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case" and "[f]ees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case."
The unsuccessful party has the burden of showing circumstances to overcome the presumption that favors the award of costs under Rule 54(d). See White White, 786 F.2d at 732. The Sixth Circuit has identified the circumstances that an unsuccessful party may show in order to overcome the presumption. See id. at 732-733. These factors include determining whether taxable expenditures by the prevailing party are "unnecessary or unreasonably large," whether the prevailing party should be penalized for unnecessarily prolonging trial or for injecting non-meritorious issues, whether the prevailing party's recovery is so insignificant that the judgment amounts to a victory for the defendant, whether the case is "close and difficult," the good faith of a losing party in filing the action, and the necessity of the costs. See id. The Sixth Circuit will not overturn a district court's determination that costs are reasonable and necessary absent a clear abuse of discretion. See Baker v. First Tennessee Bank Nat. Ass'n, 142 F.3d 431 (Table) No. 96-6740, 1998 WL 136560 at *3, fn. 1 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 1998), unpublished.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption in favor of awarding costs to Defendant ODYS. See White White, 786 F.2d at 730. Specifically, by failing to respond at all, the Court determines that Plaintiff has not established any of the factors delineated by the Sixth Circuit for overcoming the presumption for awarding costs to Defendant, the prevailing party. First and most importantly, neither the type of nor the amount of Defendant's expenditures were unnecessary or unreasonably large. See ECF Dkt. #71. The Defendant seeks reimbursement primarily for court reporter and transcript fees for depositions obtained for use in this case, and for a slight amount of printing and copying costs. See id. These types of costs are manifestly authorized in the Northern District's form for seeking an award of costs. See id. The amount of the costs sought, just over $4,500, are clearly reasonable. See id. In roughly fifteen months, from the date of filing to judgment, there was substantial activity in the instant case. See id., and Docket. At least twelve depositions were transcribed, at least three witnesses were subpoenaed, and the docket consisted of nearly 70 filings. See id., and Docket.
Defendant is quite clearly the prevailing party in the instant case because it was granted summary judgement on all of Plaintiff's federal claims. See ECF Dkt. #69. The cases that have interpreted the "prevailing party" language in Rule 54(d)(1) generally state the prevailing party is the party in whose favor judgment was entered. See 10 Moore's Federal Practice § 54.101 [3](citing Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 354-355 (11th Cir. 1995) (grant of summary judgment to defendants on federal claims and dismissal of plaintiff's state claims was "judgment in defendants' favor," making defendants prevailing parties under Rule 54(d)(1)).
Generally, "the costs of taking and transcribing depositions reasonably necessary for the litigation are allowed to the prevailing party." Sales v. Marshall, 873 F.2d 115, 120 (6th Cir. 1989). "Necessity is determined as of the time of the taking, and the fact that a deposition is not actually used at trial is not controlling." Id.
By failing to respond at all, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not present any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why any particular costs put forth for reimbursement by Defendant were irrelevant or excessive. The Court also emphasizes that Plaintiff did not present any arguments or evidence regarding any of the other factors mentioned by the Sixth Circuit in a Rule 54(d)(1) costs analysis. See White White, supra. Defendant did not delay or make non-meritorious assertions in this case, and the case was not close and difficult as evidenced by the fact that Defendant was granted summary judgment. See supra.
For the above reasons, the Court finds that Defendant is a prevailing party as summary judgment was granted in its favor, the costs for the court reporter, the transcripts, and copying costs are costs allowable under Rule 54(d)(1), the itemized costs themselves are reasonable in amount, and said costs were necessary for use in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and (4); FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1); ECF Dkt. #71.
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, based upon the foregoing analysis, the Court GRANTS Defendant ODYS' motion for costs and awards ODYS its costs contained in its bill of costs in the total amount of $4,506.53. See ECF Dkt. #71. Given that Plaintiff has not appealed the instant case, the Court will contemporaneously enter judgment in the amount of the requested costs in favor of Defendant ODYS.
IT IS SO ORDERED