Opinion
99 C 50287
July 17, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On June 5, 2001 the court granted Elkay Manufacturing's ("Elkay") motion for summary judgment. Elkay filed a motion for a Bill of Costs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) on July 5, 2000 for $1,914.16. Plaintiff Samuel L. Huizenga filed objections to the Bill of Costs on July 11, 2000. Huizenga objects to the Bill of Costs on the grounds that: (1) he is unemployed and essentially indigent and it would create a financial hardship for him to pay the Bill of Costs; and, (2) not all the costs requested were related to Elkay's motion for summary judgment, nor were all the requested costs necessary. (Plaintiff's Mot., ¶¶ 2-3)
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); Contreras v. City of Chicago, 119 F.3d 1286, 1295 (7th Cir. 1997). A district court's discretion when reducing or eliminating costs is narrowly confined to two grounds: (1) when the prevailing party has engaged in misconduct worthy of a penalty; or, (2) when the losing party is unable to pay. Contreras, 119 F.3d at 1295. Here, Huizenga seeks to have Elkay's costs reduced or eliminated on the basis of the indigency exception. However, his bare assertion that he is unemployed and "essentially" indigent is not enough to carry the day. Likewise, Huizenga bears the burden of showing that Elkay is not entitled to the costs he is challenging. See M.T. Bonk Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., 945 F.2d 1404, 1409 (7th Cir. 1991); see also In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 221 F.3d 449, 462-63 (3d Cir. 2000). His bare assertion that some of the costs are unrelated- or unnecessary does not sustain his burden of proof.
Huizenga's motion for review of Elkay's Bill of Costs is denied.