(quoting Cullens v. Ga. Dep't of Transp., 29 F.3d 1489, 1494 (11th Cir.1994)). “[I]n evaluating copying costs, [a] court should consider whether the prevailing party could have reasonably believed that it was necessary to copy the papers at issue.” EEOC v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 623 (11th Cir. 2000). “Copying costs are compensable if the copies were made for purposes other than the law firm's mere convenience.” Maricus W. ex rel. Marvin M. v. Lanett City Bd. of Educ., 142 F.Supp.2d 1327, 1329 (M.D. Ala. 2001); see also Snow v. Bos. Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:11-CV-813-MEF, 2014 WL 641879, at *4 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 19, 2014) (“Costs for copies made merely for counsel's convenience, such as multiple copies of documents, are not recoverable.”)
As the Defendant notes, however, Rule 54(d)(1) “does not impose a specific deadline on the prevailing party by which to file a motion for costs; instead, the rule leaves it up to district courts' local rules to fill in the gap.” Snow v. Boston Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2014 WL 641879, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 19, 2014). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that the court clerk “may tax costs on 14 days' notice.”
(citing Fortran Grp. Int'l, Inc. v. Tenet Hosps. Ltd., 2013 WL 12203233, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2013)); see also Cadle v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 4352048, at *7 (M.D. Fla. July 14, 2015) (finding the cost of trial transcripts were reimbursable because they “were necessary to argue and/or respond to the post-trial motions filed in th[e] case”) (citing Snow v. Boston Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2014 WL 641879, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 19, 2014); Denton v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 645 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1228 (N.D.Ga. 2009)). There can be no dispute at this stage that the EEOC did, in fact, file a motion for injunctive relief (as it claimed it would), that Cigar City did, in fact, file a post-trial motion of its own (as the EEOC predicted it would), and that the contested trial transcripts were required to address one or both of these filings.
Trial transcripts are especially necessary when used to “argue and/or respond to the post-trial motions filed in this case.” Id.; see Snow v. Boston Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2014 WL 641879, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Feb.19, 2014) (awarding costs for a trial transcript as necessary to respond to opposing party's post-trial motion); Denton v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 645 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1228 (N.D.Ga. 2009).
Defendant's position, however, is undermined by the very case it cites as support. Snow v. Boston Mut Life Ins. Co. supports Defendant's position based on the Local Rules in the Middle District of Alabama, but states as a general principle, “Rule 54(d), however, does not impose a specific deadline on the prevailing party by which to file a motion for costs; instead, the rule leaves it up to district courts' local rules to fill in the gap.” No. 3:11-cv-813, 2014 WL 6411879, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb 19, 2014).
As for the trial transcript, this Court has previously held that the "cost of trial transcripts may be taxed against a losing party when such transcripts are necessary for use in the case." Snow v. Boston Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2014 WL 641879, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 19, 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2)). Obtaining a trial transcript is reasonably necessary when a party must respond to a post-trial motion under Rule 59(e).
Plaintiff does not contest the necessity of the trial transcripts (Doc. No. 170 at 8), and the undersigned finds that such transcripts were necessary to argue and/or respond to the post-trial motions filed in this case. See, e.g., Snow v. Boston Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2014 WL 641879, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 19, 2014) (awarding costs for trial transcript as necessary to respond to opposing party's post-trial motion); Denton v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 645 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1228 (N.D. Ga. 2009) (same). Plaintiff, though, does challenge the amount of costs sought for two (2) original trial transcripts: 1) Defendant's ore tenus motion for directed verdict; and 2) excerpts of trial testimony.