With respect to the in-house copies, Defendant filed an attorney's affidavit which details the basis for the copy charges. (See Def. Reply, Ex. A P 3.) In his affidavit, Defendant's attorney presents a breakdown of six categories of copied documents and describes the number of documents copied in each category and the basis and need for those copies. (Id.) Defendant's attorney attests that the "requested amounts for copying . . . for which reimbursement is now sought . . . were necessary and reasonable." (Id. P 2.)
Copy costs "necessarily obtained for use in the case" are authorized under § 1920(4). "Included in the category of costs 'reasonably necessary for use in the case' are copies attributable to discovery and the court's copies of pleadings, motions and memoranda; however, extra copies for the convenience of the attorneys are not necessary and are not taxed as costs." Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2422, No. 95 C 2723, 1998 WL 102668, at *1 (N.D. Ill. March 3, 1998).
Having reviewed the itemization presented by Defendant's attorney, this court finds that the following copies were reasonably necessary for use in this case: (1) 3800 pages of documents copied, labeled and collated from twelve boxes of documents located at Plaintiffs' attorneys' offices; (2) 2900 pages of documents copied, collated and marked as exhibits necessary for certain depositions; (3) 600 pages of documents obtained from banks related to the allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint; and (4) 1800 pages of documents for papers and exhibits necessary for Defendant's pleadings and other filings. These costs reflect charges for copies (9100 pages in total) regarding discovery, pleadings and motions which are generally considered reasonably necessary for use in a case.
The court, however, finds, in its discretion, that certain other copy costs sought by Defendant were not reasonably necessary for use in this case. Specifically, the court denies Defendant costs for: (1) 2100 pages of documents for copying decisions from official reporters, articles, research and text from treatises; and (2) 900 pages of documents necessary to generate binders of pleadings as part of Defendant's file. The court finds that these copies were made for the convenience of the attorneys and, therefore, should not be taxed as costs.
Plaintiffs additionally argue that Defendant's copy rate is excessive. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant has not established that the charges he seeks for his in-house copies was not more than that charged by outside print shops. See Haroco v. American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 38 F.3d 1429, 1441 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Martin v. United States, 931 F.2d 453, 455 (7th Cir. 1991)).
In his affidavit, Defendant's attorney states that the copy firms used by Defendant charged between $ .15 and $ .20 per page for copies. (Def. Reply, Ex. A. P 5.) Because Defendant has not classified or otherwise broken down when it incurred $ .20 per page as opposed to $ .15 per page copy costs, this court grants Defendant reimbursement for its copy costs at $ .15 per page. Courts have concluded that a $ .15 per page copy cost is reasonable. See, e.g., Lever v. Northwestern Univ., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9237, No. 84 C 11025, WL 257477, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 1993).
In sum, this court sustains Plaintiffs' objection in part and grants Defendant copy costs in the amount of $ 1365.00, reflecting 9100 in-house copies at $ .15 per page.
III. TELEPHONE DEPOSITION BILL.
Finally, Plaintiffs object to Defendant's request for $ 235.92 for half of a telephone deposition bill. Plaintiffs do not dispute that the request for reimbursement is proper; instead, Plaintiffs state that Defendant failed to supply the telephone bill supporting the amount.
In his reply to Plaintiffs' objections, Defendant attached a copy of the bill for $ 471.83. (Def. Reply, Ex. D.) In the accompanying affidavit, Defendant's attorney attests that this bill is true and accurate. (Id., Ex. A P 7.)
Because Defendant has supported its incurred cost for this disputed telephone deposition bill, this court overrules Plaintiffs' objection on this point.
For the foregoing reasons, this court grants Defendant costs in the amount of $ 5561.67.
IAN H. LEVIN
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: March 27, 1998