United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
January 17, 2003
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Zagel, United States District Judge
On November 27, 2001, I granted IDOT's motion for summary judgment, after which IDOT submitted a bill of costs in the amount of $2,330.15 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). Plaintiff raised some objections, after which IDOT withdrew some of its requests. There appear to be two objections that have not been cured by IDOT's withdrawals. First, plaintiff objects to photocopying costs of $240.40, which were incurred by IDOT in connection with its summary judgment motion. I agree with IDOT that these were necessary to the litigation and are reasonable, particularly in light of the fact that IDOT did not request costs incurred photocopying documents produced to plaintiff during the course of this litigation.
Second, plaintiff objects to IDOT's request that plaintiff pays the full amount for copies of the deposition transcripts invoiced by plaintiff's court reporter since plaintiff's attorney deposed these witnesses also in connection with a companion case before Judge Gottschall. Plaintiff asks that he be taxed only half of these costs, to which IDOT objects. IDOT indicates that should it prevail in the companion case before Judge Gottschall, it will not seek a double recovery of costs from both plaintiffs. Because the deposition transcripts at issue were used by plaintiff in this case, I find that he is responsible for all of those costs. If plaintiff feels that this cost should be split with the plaintiff in the companion case should the IDOT prevail there as well, that is an issue to be resolved between those plaintiffs.
Therefore, IDOT's bill of costs is granted. Plaintiff shall pay IDOT $1,429.75 in costs.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.