transcript, and $0.50 per page for each additional copy to the same
Defendant seeks $270.25 for the deposition transcript, including
delivery, of Fadia Sihwail. The invoice indicates a charge of $2.75 per
page. This rate is below the established rate by the Judicial Conference
and is awarded.
LaSalle seeks deposition transcript costs for Dr. Hamilton-Bennett,
Dr. Wolf, and Donald Curenton at the rate of $4.20 per page for a total
of 384 pages. The invoices do not indicate that the transcripts were
expedited, and LaSalle does not explain why the transcripts would have
been required on an expedited basis. Accordingly, LaSalle is awarded
$3.00 per page for a total of $1,152 for these three deposition
LaSalle seeks a total of 286 pages for the deposition transcripts of
Elmer and Ronald Sanglap on an expedited basis. Defendant does not
explain why the transcripts were necessary on an expedited basis.
Accordingly, LaSalle is awarded $3.00 per page for a total of $858.
LaSalle also seeks $50 for two "minuscripts" of depositions. As a second
copy, "minuscripts" are not recoverable. See Winfrey v. City of Chicago,
2000 WL 965854 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2000).
Based on the above, Defendant is awarded a total of $2,280.25 in
deposition copy costs.
LaSalle also seeks a total of $600 in court reporter fees. The amount
requested is based on a hourly rate of $40 per hour for the court
reporter. This rate is not contested by Sanglap and is reasonable.
Accordingly, $600 is awarded in court reporter fees.
Last, LaSalle seeks $9,994 for copies of all filings made with the
court, one copy for each party and one for the Court. However, the
invoice simply states that the charge is for photocopying at the rate of
$0.10 per page. The invoices do not, nor does LaSalle's affidavit,
describe what documents were copied. LaSalle avers in the affidavit that
"copying costs include copies of documents necessarily obtained for use
in this matter". Based on the information provided, the Court is unable
to determine if these materials were reasonably necessary. Copying
charges that are not discernable from the supporting documentation are
not allowed. See American Automotive Accessories v. Fishman,
991 F. Supp. 995, 997 (N.D.Ill. 1998); Falcon, 2000 WL 1231403 at *2.
Accordingly, these copy charges cannot be assessed against Sanglap.
For the reasons stated above, LaSalle's motion for fees as the
prevailing party is denied. LaSalle's Bill of Costs is granted in part and
denied in part. LaSalle is awarded a total of $3,160.25 in costs ($280
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.