Opinion
Case No. 2:08-cv-755 CW.
April 12, 2011
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Clara Palacios' Objection to Taxation of Costs and Motion for Review. Following a two-week jury trial in January 2011, in which Defendants Sure Systems, LLC and Marcelo A. Occon ("Defendants") prevailed, Defendants filed a Bill of Costs for $8,567.43. On March 8, 2011, the Chief Deputy Clerk determined that some of the requested costs were inappropriate. She therefore reduced the taxed costs to $4,278.43. Plaintiff moves the court to review and vacate the award based on Plaintiff's indigency.
A trial court has discretion to disallow costs. Such discretion, however, it not unlimited. Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "creates a presumption that the district court will award costs to the prevailing party." The Tenth Circuit has recognized, however, that certain factors can overcome the presumption. One factor is if "the nonprevailing party [is] indigent." Also relevant is the potential "chilling effect of imposing . . . high costs on future civil rights litigants."
Cantrell v. Int'l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, 69 F.3d 456, 458 (10th Cir. 1995).
Id. at 459.
Id. (citing 741 F.2d 1525, 1542 (7th Cir. 1984).
Sutton v. Corrections Corp of Am., No. 06-cv-01606, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69198 (D. Colo. Aug. 29, 2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (ellipses in original).
Here, Plaintiff has been approved to proceed in forma pauperis due to indigency. Moreover, Plaintiff presented compelling evidence that she was raped by a co-worker. Defendants prevailed on the hostile work environment claim not because they disproved their liability, but because of a statute of limitations issue that was factually disputed. Were the court to impose costs under such circumstances, it may well have a chilling effect on future civil rights litigants. For these reasons, the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Review and VACATES the taxation of costs.
Dkt. No. 200.
Dkt. No. 199.
SO ORDERED.