Opinion
92 Civ. 7305 (LAK)
October 12, 2000
ORDER
The plaintiff, who now is acting pro se, seeks review of a bill of costs taxed by the Clerk following the entry of judgment in favor of defendants on a jury verdict. Although the application is untimely, the Court, in the interest of justice, extends plaintiff's time to make the application nunc pro tunc and reviews the matter on the merits in view of the punitive manner in which the defendants have proceeded.
Defendants sought, and the Clerk taxed, the following as costs:
Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case $1,540.00
Fees for witnesses 665.93
Costs incident to taking depositions 920.51
Costs incurred by defendant Stamp 682.23
Total $3,808.67
The first item is for the cost of daily copy of the trial transcript. The third is for the cost of an original and one copy of the transcript of the deposition of the plaintiff. The second and fourth are for the travel and living expenses of the defendants and a witness.
The taxation of the cost of daily copy of a trial transcript is permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2), in the discretion of the trial court, where daily copy is "necessarily obtained for use in the case." E.g., Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986, 999 (2d Cir. 1973). But the standard is necessity, not convenience of counsel. Id. Relevant factors include the length of the trial, the need for daily copy in order to examine witnesses, and the need for the transcript to prepare timely briefs. E.g., Electronic Specialty Co. v. International Controls Corp., 47 F.R.D. 158, 161 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). And there is no colorable claim that daily copy was "necessarily obtained for use in" this short and simple trial. Accordingly, the award of the cost of daily copy of the trial transcript is vacated.
The deposition transcripts in question are those of the plaintiff's deposition. The duration of the deposition does not appear to have been unreasonable and the deposition of the plaintiff was essential to the proper preparation of this case. Accordingly, that portion of the bill of costs will not be disturbed.
In the exercise of discretion, the Court declines to permit recovery of the travel, parking and other expenses of the defense witnesses. This was not a frivolous case. The plaintiff is indigent. The only purpose served by the imposition of so large an award of costs would be retaliatory and therefore inappropriate.
Accordingly, plaintiff's application for review of the costs taxed by the Clerk is granted to the extent that the bill of costs is vacated save for the award of $920.51 attributable to the transcript of plaintiff's deposition.
SO ORDERED.