Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carlson v. Bukovic

August 26, 2009


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nan R. Nolan United States Magistrate Judge

Judge Nan R. Nolan


On August 7, 2009, the court awarded Defendants Scott Bukovic and the City of Darien $12,908.39 in costs, finding them both to be prevailing parties following a June 9, 2008 grant of summary judgment in favor of the City, and a June 18, 2009 jury verdict in favor of Officer Bukovic. Carlson v. Bukovic, No. 07 C 06, 2008 WL 2397682 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2008); (Minute Order of 6/18/09, Doc. 168; Judgment of 6/18/09, Doc. 169; Minute Order of 8/7/09, Doc. 214.) Plaintiff now moves to reconsider and alter the award. For the reasons set forth here, the motion is granted in part, denied in part and entered and continued in part.


A. Necessity

Plaintiff raises four challenges to the award of costs. First, she objects that Defendants failed to demonstrate the necessity of their costs, and that she was not given an opportunity to rebut allegations of necessity raised in the Defendants' reply memorandum. The court's August 7, 2009 opinion details its findings of necessity, and Plaintiff has not identified any additional objections she would have raised in response to Defendants' reply brief. Plaintiff's objections on necessity grounds are overruled.

B. Physician Depositions

Plaintiff next argues that she never intended to call three of her treating physicians as witnesses at trial: Dr. Richard Bertenshaw, Dr. Brian Smith and Dr. Thomas Sullivan. On September 15, 2008, however, Plaintiff expressly identified all three physicians as "witnesses who may be called upon at trial to present expert testimony" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A). (Doc. 96.) Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that she affirmatively withdrew these witnesses from her list before Defendants took their depositions in January and February 2009. It is true that in the final pretrial order, submitted months later, Plaintiff did not identify the three doctors as witnesses; she did, however, seek to introduce records from Dr. Bertenshaw and Dr. Sullivan as trial exhibits. Regardless, "[t]he law of this Circuit plainly holds that depositions need not be used in support of a dispositive motion or introduced at trial to be reasonably necessary." Jackson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 07-cv-0450-MJR-CJP, 2008 WL 5244846, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2008). The court remains satisfied that the depositions were reasonably necessary at the time they were taken, and Plaintiff's objection to paying these costs is overruled. See Kaplan v. City of Chicago, No. 05 C 2001, 2009 WL 1940789, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2009) (citing Majeske v. City of Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 825 (7th Cir. 2000)) (to be recoverable, a deposition transcript must be "reasonably necessary at the time the deposition was taken in light of the facts known at the time.")

C. Reasonable Fee

Plaintiff's third objection relates to paying a reasonable fee to the physician witnesses she identified as experts under Rule 26(a)(2)(A). Plaintiff claims that "the Seventh Circuit has held that such fees may not be taxed to the losing party as costs." (Pl. Mot., at 2.) She then directs the court to four cases cited in her objections to the Bill of Costs, none of which is from the Seventh Circuit or any other court in this jurisdiction. See, e.g., Holmes v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 11 F.3d 63, 64 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding, without explanation, that defendant could not recover more than $40 per day in fees for expert witnesses). Nonetheless, the argument is well-taken.

"Unless the expert is court appointed, . . . the only fees that are recoverable as witness fees under § 1920(3) are those allowed by statute for a witness' attendance at court or a deposition." Portman v. Andrews, 249 F.R.D. 279, 282 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1821). "This amounts to $40 per day, plus subsistence." Id. See also O'Toole v. Kalmar, No. 85 C 7380, 1990 WL 141431, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 1990) ("[A]ny costs incurred by the prevailing party in deposing . . . an expert witness are recoverable but only to the same extent that a lay witness fee may be recovered.")

It does not appear that any of the expert witnesses appeared for more than one day of deposition testimony. In addition, Defendants have not identified or documented any charges paid for the witnesses' subsistence. Thus, Defendants' request for witness fees is amended as follows:

(1) $40 for Dr. Bertenshaw; (2) $40 for Dr. Lisa Fortman; (3) $40 for Dr. Gene Harvey; (4) $40 for Dr. Kern; (5) $40 for Dr. Sullivan; (6) $40 for Dr. Robert J. Trefil; (7) $40 for Dr. Smith; and (8) $40 for Paul Carlson. The total award for ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.