SARA DARROW, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the Defendant U.S. Bank National Association's ("U.S. Bank") Motion for Bill of Costs, ECF No. 32. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS U.S. Bank's motion.
The Court granted U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment on August 1, 2013. Order & Op., ECF No. 31. U.S. Bank now moves for $1038.70 in costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Plaintiff Candice Rowe has not filed a response to the motion.
Rule 54 provides a "strong presumption" that the prevailing party will recover costs. Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 944-45 (7th Cir. 1997). Here, U.S. Bank specifically moves for the cost of videotaping its deposition of Rowe, and of obtaining a transcript of that same deposition. Courts may award a prevailing party the costs of both video-recording and stenographically transcribing the same deposition. Little v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., 514 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 2007). The costs must be "both reasonable and necessary to the litigation for a prevailing party to recover [them], " however, and the transcript must have been "necessarily obtained for use in the case." Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 454 (7th Cir. 1998)). The Court finds that the transcript was necessarily obtained for use in this case because, as in Little, it was used to support the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Id. For similar reasons, the Court further finds that the cost of obtaining the video recording and transcript was reasonable and necessary to the litigation.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant U.S. Bank National Association's Motion for Bill of Costs, ECF No. 32. Plaintiff is ...