`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`OCALA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: 5:14-cv-197-Oc-30PRL
`
`
`BARBARA BURROWS,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`THE COLLEGE OF CENTRAL
`FLORIDA,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`________________________________/
`
`ORDER
`
`THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Costs
`
`
`
`
`
`and Expenses (Doc. 56) and Plaintiff’s response in opposition thereto (Doc. 58). The
`
`Court, having reviewed the motion, supporting documents, objections, and being otherwise
`
`fully advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be granted in part and
`
`denied in part.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. Following her termination of
`
`employment with Defendant, Plaintiff initiated this action in Fifth Judicial Circuit in and
`
`for Marion County, Florida, on November 22, 2013, asserting the following claims against
`
`Defendant: (1) gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 2000e-2000e-17, and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01-.11 (“FCRA”);
`
`(2) religious discrimination under Title VII and the FCRA; (3) marital status discrimination
`
`
`
`Case 5:14-cv-00197-JSM-PRL Document 61 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 8 PageID 1309
`
`under the FCRA; (4) gender stereotype discrimination under Title VII; and (5) retaliation
`
`under Title VII and the FCRA. (Doc. 2). On April 1, 2014, Defendant removed the action
`
`to this Court. (Doc. 1).
`
`
`
`Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for religious
`
`discrimination and marital status discrimination. (Doc. 5). The Court granted Defendant’s
`
`motion in part, dismissing Plaintiff’s claim for religious discrimination. (Doc. 27).
`
`Thereafter, Defendant moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining claims,
`
`which the Court granted, entering judgment in favor of Defendant. (Docs. 43, 51, 52).
`
`Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied. (Docs.
`
`57, 60).
`
`
`
`Defendant now seeks costs in the total amount of $4,639.90 pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). (Doc. 56.).
`
`STANDARD FOR AWARDING COSTS
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) prescribes an award of costs for a
`
`prevailing party unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a court
`
`order provides otherwise. See Durden v. Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB, No. 3:07-cv-974-J-
`
`34JRK, 2010 WL 2105921, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2010) (stating that Rule 54 establishes
`
`a presumption that costs should be awarded unless the district court decides otherwise
`
`(citing Chapman v. Al Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1038 (11th Cir. 2000))). Summary
`
`judgment was granted in favor of Defendant. Thus, Defendant is the prevailing party in
`
`this case and is entitled to costs under Rule 54(d)(1). See Powell v. Carey Int’l, Inc., 548
`
`F. Supp. 2d 1351, 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (stating that a prevailing party is one who
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 5:14-cv-00197-JSM-PRL Document 61 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 8 PageID 1310
`
`“prevailed on ‘any significant issue in the litigation which achieved some of the benefit the
`
`parties sought in bringing the suit’” (quoting Tex. State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep.
`
`Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 791 (1989))).
`
`
`
` A strong presumption exists in favor of awarding costs, unless the district court
`
`decides otherwise. See Durden, 2010 WL 2105921, at *1; see also Arcadian Fertilizer,
`
`L.P. v. MPW Indus. Servs., Inc., 249 F.3d 1293, 1296 (11th Cir. 2001). The district court’s
`
`discretion in not awarding all costs is limited; the district court must articulate a sound
`
`reason for not awarding full costs. See Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1038-39; Durden, 2010 WL
`
`2105921, at *1. “However, a court may only tax costs as authorized by statute.” E.E.O.C.
`
`v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 620 (11th Cir. 2000). Specifically, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1920, the following may be taxed as costs:
`
`(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
`
`(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily
`obtained for use in the case;
`
`(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
`
`(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials
`where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;
`
`(5) Docket fees under [28 U.S.C. § 1923]; [and]
`
`(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters,
`and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services
`under [28 U.S.C. § 1828].
`
`See generally Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987),
`
`superseded on other grounds by 42 U.S.C. § 1988(c) (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines
`
`the term “costs” as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 5:14-cv-00197-JSM-PRL Document 61 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 8 PageID 1311
`
`may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)). The party
`
`seeking an award of costs or expenses bears the burden of submitting a request that enables
`
`a court to determine what costs or expenses were incurred by the party and the party’s
`
`entitlement to an award of those costs or expenses. Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776,
`
`784 (11th Cir. 1994).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`Defendant seeks reimbursement for total costs of $4,446.90 comprising: (1) $400
`
`for the removal fee; (2) $3,671 for costs incurred in transcribing depositions; and (3)
`
`$375.90 for the costs of copies for discovery, pleadings, correspondence, and exhibits.
`
`1. Fees of the Clerk
`
`
`
`Defendant first seeks reimbursement in the amount of $400 for the cost of removing
`
`this action from state court. Fees of the clerk and marshal are recoverable under § 1920(1),
`
`and Plaintiff does not object to recovery of the removal fee. Accordingly, Defendant
`
`should be awarded $400 in costs for fees of the Clerk.
`
`2. Fees for Printed or Electronically Recorded Transcripts Necessarily Obtained for
`Use in the Case
`
`Next, Defendant seeks reimbursement in the amount of $3,671 for costs incurred
`
`
`
`for transcription of the depositions of Barbara Burrows, Joseph Mazur, Mark Paugh, James
`
`Roe, and Allan Danuff. Generally, § 1920(2) authorizes taxation of costs for deposition
`
`transcripts “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2); see also Maris
`
`Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 302 F.3d 1207, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). Costs for
`
`transcripts of depositions conducted in support of a motion for summary judgment or
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 5:14-cv-00197-JSM-PRL Document 61 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 8 PageID 1312
`
`depositions conducted of witnesses listed on a party’s witness list are exemplary of the
`
`types of costs recoverable under § 1920(2). See, e.g., Family Oriented Cmty. United
`
`Strong, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 8:11-cv-217-T-30AEP, 2012 WL 6575348, at
`
`*1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2012). However, “where the deposition costs were merely incurred
`
`for convenience, to aid in thorough preparation, or for purposes of investigation only, the
`
`costs are not recoverable.” W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d at 621.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff agrees that Defendant is entitled to reimbursement for the costs of
`
`transcribing the depositions of Barbara Burrows and Mark Paugh since Defendant relied
`
`upon those depositions in its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff does not agree,
`
`however, that Defendant is entitled to reimbursement for the transcription costs of the
`
`depositions of Joseph Mazur, James Roe, or Allan Danuff. Plaintiff also argues that
`
`Defendant attempts to recover several costs not recoverable under § 1920(2), such as fees
`
`for shipping and handling, costs for scanning and copying exhibits, and the costs for an
`
`“e-litigation” package.
`
`
`
`Because Defendant relied on the depositions of Barbara Burrows and Mark Paugh
`
`in its motion for summary judgment, those depositions were necessarily obtained for use
`
`in the case and are recoverable under § 1920(2). Similarly, the depositions of Joseph
`
`Mazur, James Roe, and Allan Danuff, although not ultimately relied upon by Defendant,
`
`were not unrelated to an issue in the case at the time they were taken; thus, Defendant
`
`would be entitled to recover the costs of those depositions as well. See Watson v. Lake
`
`Cnty., 492 Fed. App’x 991, 996-97 (11th Cir. 2012) (“[E]ven where a deposition is not
`
`ultimately used [at trial or in a summary judgment motion] as part of the prevailing party’s
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 5:14-cv-00197-JSM-PRL Document 61 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 8 PageID 1313
`
`case, we have held that the costs of the deposition are taxable under § 1920 where no
`
`evidence shows that the deposition was unrelated to an issue in the case at the time it was
`
`taken.”).
`
`
`
`Yet, as noted by Plaintiff, Defendant seeks to improperly recover extra costs in the
`
`preparation of such transcripts, such as costs for shipping and handling, costs for copying
`
`and scanning exhibits, and the costs of an “e-litigation” package. See id. at 997 (finding
`
`that a district court abused its discretion by taxing costs for shipment and binding of
`
`depositions because Ҥ 1920 does not authorize recovery of costs for shipment of
`
`depositions or costs for binders, tabs, and technical labor”). Because Defendant cannot
`
`properly tax these costs, the Court concludes that Defendant is only entitled to recover
`
`$3,301.25 for the costs of transcribing depositions, constituting $445.25 for the deposition
`
`transcripts of Mark Paugh, $318.50 for the deposition transcripts of James Roe, $289.25
`
`for the deposition transcripts of Allan Danuff, $653.25 for the deposition transcript of
`
`Joseph Mazur, and $1,595.25 for the deposition transcripts of Barbara Burrows.
`
`3. Fees for Exemplification and the Costs of Making Copies of Any Materials Where
`the Copies are Necessarily Obtained for Use in the Case
`
`Finally, Defendant requests reimbursement in the amount of $375.90 for costs
`
`
`
`associated with making copies of materials where the copies were “necessarily obtained
`
`for use in the case.” Such fees are recoverable costs provided that Defendant presents
`
`evidence establishing the nature of the documents and how they were used or intended to
`
`be used in the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4); Palmer v. Johnson, No. 2:09-cv-604-FTM-29,
`
`2012 WL 4512918, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2012). Typically, “‘[c]opies attributable to
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 5:14-cv-00197-JSM-PRL Document 61 Filed 09/10/15 Page 7 of 8 PageID 1314
`
`discovery, copies of pleadings, correspondence, documents tendered to the opposing party,
`
`copies of exhibits, and documents prepared for the Court’s consideration are recoverable.’”
`
`Gordon v. Beary, No. 6:08-cv-73-Orl-36KRS, 2012 WL 3291699, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July
`
`27, 2012) (quoting Desisto Coll., Inc. v. Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, 718 F. Supp. 906,
`
`913 (M.D. Fla. 1989)). On the other hand, “[c]opies obtained for the convenience of
`
`counsel, including extra copies of filed papers, correspondence, and copies of cases, are
`
`not taxable.” Id.
`
`
`
`Defendant seeks reimbursement for copy costs associated with 3,757 pages at $.10
`
`per page for copies of discovery documents, exhibits submitted in support of Defendant’s
`
`motion for summary judgment, a courtesy copy of Defendant’s motion for summary
`
`judgment, copies of exhibits used at Plaintiff’s deposition, and copies of exhibits
`
`attributable to the corporate representative. Plaintiff objects to the number of copies for
`
`which Plaintiff seeks reimbursement, asserting that the copies were cumulative and
`
`unnecessary. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant should only be entitled to recover costs for
`
`the motion for summary judgment and attached exhibits, which amounts to 556 pages or
`
`$55.60, and for the ninety pages of exhibits utilized during Plaintiff’s deposition, which
`
`would amount to $9.
`
`
`
`For a fee to be compensable the taxing party must provide adequate documentation
`
`and description regarding the necessity of the cost. See Scelta v. Delicatessen Support
`
`Servs., Inc., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2002). Defendant has provided no
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 5:14-cv-00197-JSM-PRL Document 61 Filed 09/10/15 Page 8 of 8 PageID 1315
`
`documentation substantiating its copy costs and their necessity for use in the case.1 Thus,
`
`the Court is inclined to agree with Plaintiff that Defendant’s copy costs should be limited
`
`to the courtesy copy of its motion for summary judgment that was provided to the Court
`
`and the costs of the exhibits obtained for use in Plaintiff’s deposition. Accordingly,
`
`Defendant should be awarded copy costs in the amount of $64.60.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
`
`1. Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Costs and Expenses (Doc. 56) is GRANTED
`
`in part and DENIED in part.
`
`
`
`2. The Clerk is directed to enter a Bill of Costs in the amount of $3,765.85 in
`
`Defendant’s favor and against Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 10th day of September, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Copies furnished to:
`Counsel/Parties of Record
`
`
`
`
`1Defendant provided the Court with a single document showing the copy costs incurred in the case,
`but the document is vague and does not reflect how the copies were necessarily obtained for use in the case.
`8
`
`
`
`