United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. Herndon Judge.
Introduction and Background
entry of judgment for Defendants City of Johnston City and
Jim Mitchell, they filed their Bill of Costs (Doc. 130).
Specifically, defendants ask for $16, 189.02 in costs which
include: (1) $482.60 for service of summons and subpoena; (2)
$13, 359.30 for transcripts; (3) $1505.52 for witness fees;
and (4) $841.60 for exemplification and copies of materials
necessarily obtained for use in the case. Plaintiff filed
timely objections to the bill of costs (Doc. 133).
objection (Doc. 133), plaintiff first asserts that she should
be excused from paying certain costs because they were
unnecessary and excessive, including daily transcript fees
and the video clips used at trial. Plaintiff also argues that
costs sought for copies are not properly documented and
should be denied. Finally, plaintiff argues certain witness
fees, service costs and travel expenses were unnecessary and
should be denied. The plaintiff's specific objections
shall be addressed below. For the following reasons, the
Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendants' Bill
of Costs (Doc. 130). Plaintiff Jayne Stallings is ORDERED to
pay defendants' costs in the amount of $8, 888.84.
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) entitles prevailing parties
to recover their costs, other than attorneys' fees.
Richardson v. City of Chicago, 740 F.3d 1099, 1102
(7th Cir. 2014). Rule 54(d) provides that unless a federal
statute, rule, or court order says otherwise, costs
“should be allowed” to the prevailing party. In
other words, Rule 54(d)(1) “codifies a venerable
presumption that prevailing parties are entitled to
costs.” Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 133 S.Ct.
1166, 1172, 185 L.Ed.2d 242 (2013); See also Loomis v.
Exelon, 658 F.3d 667, 674 (7th Cir. 2011).
the presumption for a cost award, “the word
“should” [in 28 U.S.C. § 1920] makes clear
that the decision whether to award costs ultimately lies
within the sound discretion of the district court.”
Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 133 S.Ct. 1166, 1172,
185 L.Ed.2d 242 (2013). In order to overcome the presumption
in favor of the award of costs, “the losing party bears
the burden of an affirmative showing that taxed costs are not
appropriate.” Beamon v. Marshall &
Ilsley Trust Co., 411 F.3d 854, 864 (7th Cir. 2005)
(citing M.T. Bonk Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., 945
F.2d 1404, 1409 (7th Cir. 1991)).
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that the Rule
54(d) presumption applies to those costs of litigation
identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Montanez v.
Simon, 755 F.3d 547, 557 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub
nom. Montanez v. Chicago Police Officers FICO, 135
S.Ct. 459, 190 L.Ed.2d 332 (2014); U.S. Neurosurgical,
Inc. v. City of Chicago, 572 F.3d 325, 333 (7th
Cir.2009). The following costs are allowed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1920: (1) fees of the clerk and marshal; (2)
fees for transcripts, (3) witness and printing fees and
expenses, (4) fees for copies or papers necessarily obtained
for use in the case, (5) docket fees, and (6) compensation
for court-appointed experts and interpreters. 28 U.S.C.
costs against the non-prevailing party requires two
inquiries: (1) whether the cost is recoverable, and (2)
whether the amount assessed is reasonable. See Majeske v.
City of Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 824 (7th Cir. 2000);
Extra Equipamentos E Exportacao Ltda. v. Case Corp.,
541 F.3d 719, 727 (7th Cir. 2008) (the process for awarding
costs is intended to be summary, not an inquest on the
winning party's litigation strategy). With these
principles in mind, the Court shall discuss each of the
challenged costs in turn.
mentioned above, defendants filed a Bill of Costs after
judgment was granted in their favor on June 30, 2016 (Doc.
130). Plaintiff filed a response contesting the Bill of Costs
on July 14, 2016 (Doc. 130). In her response, plaintiff
argues that defendants should not be awarded certain costs in
this case because the defendants have not shown that certain
costs were actually and necessarily incurred during this
litigation. The Court has thoroughly reviewed defendants'
Bill of Costs (Doc. 130) and plaintiff's objections
thereto (Doc. 132), along with defendants' reply (Doc.
133) and, pursuant to the foregoing principles, rules as
$482.60 for Service of Subpoenas
request $482.60 in costs incurred in the service of seven
subpoenas upon trial witnesses (James Pulliam, Jeannie
Viecely, Mike Stallings, Steven C. Shafer, Michael Riva,
Austin Stallings, and Dr. Jeffrey Parks) at either $45.00 or
$55.00 per subpoena ($364.00) plus a mileage charge
associated with the service of the subpoenas.
for service of process are recoverable under 28 U.S.C. §
1920(1), but may not exceed the U.S. Marshals rate at the
time process was served. Collins v. Gorman, 96 F.3d
1057, 1060 (7th Cir.1996). As of 2016, the U.S. Marshals
Service charge is $65.00 per hour, plus 0.54 per mile. 28
C.F.R. § 0.114. To award costs for the service of
subpoenas, the court need only ...