Am Properties v. Town of Chapel Hill, 1:00CV01097.

• Decision Date: 07 May 2002
• Docket Number: No. 1:00CV01097.,1:00CV01097.
• Citation: 202 F.Supp.2d 451
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: AM PROPERTIES and Dallas Development and Trust, North Carolina Business Trusts, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, Defendant.

202 F.Supp.2d 451

AM PROPERTIES and Dallas Development and Trust, North Carolina Business Trusts, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, Defendant.

No. 1:00CV01097.

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.

May 7, 2002.

David M. Rooks, III, Northern Blue, L.L.P., Chapel Hill, NC, for plaintiff.

Susan K. Burkhart, Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog, Raleigh, NC, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BEATY, District Judge.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Disallowance of Defendant's Bill of Costs [Document # 42]. This Motion arises from the Court's decision on December 26, 2001, in which the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Plaintiffs' case in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant, as the prevailing party, submitted its Application for Costs (hereinafter "Bill of Costs") [Document # 41] pertaining to the case to the Court on January 25, 2002. Objecting to several of the claimed costs, Plaintiffs now bring this Motion requesting that certain of Defendant's requested costs be disallowed.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review for Taxation of Costs

Under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the prevailing party in a lawsuit is generally entitled to "costs other than attorneys' fees." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). In order to define which costs may be taxed against a losing party, courts generally refer to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 ("§ 1920"), which provides:

§ 1920 Taxation of costs

A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;

(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case;

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;

(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case;

(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;

(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree.

28 U.S.C. § 1920.

In Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42, 107 S.Ct. 2494, 2497, 96 L.Ed.2d 385, 391 (1987), the Supreme Court held that federal courts are limited to assessing only those costs enumerated under § 1920. However, it is generally accepted that courts are free to interpret the meaning of the costs stated within § 1920. See Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 176-77 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that courts are free to interpret what constitutes taxable costs after Crawford), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 812, 112 S.Ct. 61, 116 L.Ed.2d 36 (1991); West Wind Africa Line, Ltd. v. Corpus Christi Marine Servs. Co., 834 F.2d 1232, 1238 (5th Cir.1988) ("[Crawford] limits judicial discretion with regard to the kind of expenses that may be recovered as costs; it does not, however, prevent courts from interpreting the meaning of the phrases used in § 1920."). Consistent with the discretion to interpret the taxable items enumerated in § 1920, a district court has the power to further delineate by local rules those expenditures that may be taxed as costs as long as the district court's interpretation is consistent with the applicable federal statutes and rules. For this purpose, Local Rule 54.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina provides:

(c) Taxable Costs.

(1) Items normally taxed include, without limitation:

(i) Those items specifically listed on the bill of costs form. The costs incident to the taking of depositions (when allowable as necessarily obtained for use in the litigation) normally include only the reporter's attendance fee and charge for one transcript of the deposition.

(ii) Premiums on required bonds.

(iii) Actual mileage, subsistence, and attendance allowances for necessary witnesses at actual cost, but not to exceed the applicable statutory rates, whether they reside in or out of this district.

(iv) One copy of the trial transcript for each party represented by separate counsel.

N.C.M.D. Local R. 54.1(c). However, Local Rule 54.1(c) also specifies that certain costs will not normally be taxed:

(2) Items normally not taxed include, without limitation:

(i) Witness fees, subsistence, and mileage for individual parties, real parties in interest, parties suing in representative capacities, and the officers and directors of corporate parties.

(ii) Copies of depositions.

(iii) Daily copy of trial transcripts, unless prior court approval has been obtained.

Id.

In their Brief Supporting their Motion to Disallow Costs, Plaintiffs assert that several items contained in Defendant's Bill of Costs are not authorized costs and should be disallowed. More specifically, Plaintiffs object to the following itemized expenses in Defendant's Bill of Costs: $880.04 for copies necessarily obtained for use in the case; $34.73 for photographs; $164.45 for Westlaw computer research; $114.74 for Federal Express, Express Mail, and postage; $74.00 for telecopying charges; and $128.68 for travel expenses. (Pls.' Brief Supp. Mot. for Partial Disallowance of Defendant's Bill of Costs.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs challenge Defendant's requested $475.00 for mediator costs and Defendant's request for $1,459.95 in court reporter fees to the extent that the sum exceeds the cost of the "court reporters' attendance fees and the cost of one transcript of each deposition."¹ (Pls.' Mot. for Partial Disallowance of Bill of Costs.) In addressing each of these objections in turn,² the Court will refer to the standard established by courts that have interpreted Rule 54(d) and the items enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Local Rule 54.1(c).

B. Fees for Copying and Photographs

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant, whose Bill of Costs includes a request for $880.04 of photocopying expenses and $34.73 for photograph expenses, should not be able to recover these expenses. Plaintiffs assert that these costs are merely overhead expenditures incurred by Defendant's counsel and hence are not taxable costs. The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs, however, to the extent that Plaintiffs argue that all photocopying expenses are not taxable costs. Both 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) and Local Rule 54.1 specify that taxable costs include "fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case." 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Although the statute does not explicitly address costs for photographs utilized in the lawsuit, courts have broadly interpreted "copies of papers" to also encompass necessary photography costs. See, e.g., Cleveland v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 154 F.R.D. 37, 38-39 (N.D.N.Y.1994); Bd. of Dirs., Water's Edge v. Anden Group, 135 F.R.D. 129, 137 (E.D.Va.1991). Accordingly, Defendant's requests for photocopying and photograph expenses are taxable as long as they are necessarily obtained for use in the case, and Plaintiffs do not assert that these expenses were not necessary to the case. The Court will therefore allow Defendant's costs for photocopying and photograph expenses, as reported in its Bill of Costs.

C. Travel Reimbursement

Plaintiffs also challenge Defendant's request for $128.68 as reimbursement for travel expenses. Defendant's Bill of Costs specifies that the $128.68 is to reimburse Defendant for "necessary travel" involving three trips taken by Defendant's counsel, Susan K. Burkhart, one trip taken by an individual named "Cathi J. Hunt", and one trip taken by an individual named "Leigh Ann G. Smith."

To the extent that Defendant attempts to recoup the travel expenses of its counsel, it is the Court's determination that this expense is not taxable. Pursuant to Local Rule 54.1(c)(2)(ii), the transportation costs for real parties of interest are not taxable costs. N.C.M.D. Local R. 54.1(c)(2)(ii). Accordingly, given that the transportation costs for the parties are not normally taxable costs, the Court concludes that similar transportation costs for the parties' counsel are also not taxable. See Embotelladora Agral Regiomontana, S.A. de C.V. v. Sharp Capital, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 415, 418 (N.D.Tex.1997) ("[T]ravel expenses of attorneys are not recoverable under § 1920.").

As to the travel expenses of the remaining two individuals, Ms. Hunt and Ms. Smith, Defendant's Bill of Costs does not identify these individuals' involvement with the case. The Court notes, however, that under Local Rule 54.1(c), the only travel expenses that are authorized taxable costs are those travel costs incurred by necessary witnesses. N.C.M.D. Local R. 54.1(c)(1)(iii). As Defendant has not indicated that Ms. Hunt and Ms. Smith were necessary witnesses to the case, the Court finds that these expenses are not taxable. The Court will therefore reduce Defendant's Bill of Costs by the entire $128.68 that Defendant attributed to necessary travel expenses for Ms. Burkhart, Ms. Hunt, and Ms. Smith.

D. Westlaw Expenses

Plaintiffs also object to Defendant's inclusion of $164.45 on its Bill of Costs that it attributed to "compensation for Westlaw usage." (Def.'s Application of Costs at 1.) In reviewing Plaintiffs' objection, the Court first notes that the cost of legal research services is not listed as an allowable expense in either the Local Rules or 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Furthermore, the Court finds that the cost of legal research is more properly characterized as a component of attorneys' fees, not as a taxable cost of litigation. United States v. Merritt Meridian Constr. Corp., 95 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.1996) (holding that attorneys' fees would include expenses for computerized legal research and thus not allowing computerized legal research as a separate taxable cost); Haroco, Inc. v. Am. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 38 F.3d 1429, 1440-41 (7th Cir.1994) (holding that the...