Druckzentrum Harry Jung GmbH & Co. KG v. Motorola, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 09-cv-7231 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | DRUCKZENTRUM HARRY JUNG GmbH & Co. KG, Plaintiff, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Defendant. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Druckzentrum Harry Jung GmbH & Co. KG ("DHJ"), filed suit against Motorola, Inc., alleging claims of breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. Some of the claims in DHJ's Amended Complaint were dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Thereafter, following the close of discovery, Motorola filed a motion for summary judgment on DHJ's remaining claims. Motorola's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted on August 9, 2012, and the case was dismissed. DHJ filed an appeal of this dismissal with the Seventh Circuit on September 7, 2012, and that appeal is pending before the Circuit Court. Following the notice of appeal, Motorola filed a Bill of Costs. Motorola amended its Bill of Costs on October 23, 2012, and DHJ filed objections to the Bill of Costs on November 6, 2012.
Presently before the Court is Motorola's Bill of Costs in the amount of $19,717.37. As discussed below, costs are allowed in part and denied in part.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that costs, other than attorney's fees, should be allowed to the prevailing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). A strong presumption exists favoring the awarding of costs to the prevailing party; the non-prevailing party bears the burden of overcoming this presumption. Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2006). District courts enjoy wide discretion in determining and awarding reasonable costs. Testa v. Vill. of Mundelein, Illinois, 89 F.3d 443, 447 (7th Cir. 1996). Recoverable costs are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and include the following: (1) fees of the clerk, (2) fees for transcripts, (3) fees for printing and witnesses, (4) fees for copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case, (5) docket fees, and (6) compensation of court-appointed experts and interpreters. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
A court does not, however, have Farmer v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 235 (1964). A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs only if (1) the expenses are allowable under Section 1920 and (2) the expenses are reasonable both in amount and necessity to the litigation. Deimer v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prod., Inc., 58 F.3d 341, 345 (7th Cir. 1995).
Motorola requests recovery of the following in its Amended Bill of Costs: fees for deposition, hearing, and trial transcripts ($11,338.05); witness fees and expenses ($2,533.79); costs of making copies of materials ($5,095.53); and compensation of interpreters ($750.00). DHJ challenges some of the costs submitted by Motorola, asserting that Motorola failed to provide sufficient information for the Court to determine if certain costs were reasonable and necessary or otherwise not permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Each disputed item on Motorola's Amended Bill of Costs is examined in turn.
Motorola's Amended Bill of Costs enumerates a total of $11,338.05 in fees for printed and electronically recorded transcripts. These court reporter and transcript costs are identified with additional specificity on page 5 of the Amended Bill of Costs. DHJ has raised objections to many of these transcript costs.
Motorola seeks to tax $591.70 for a transcript of the proceedings before Magistrate Judge Cole on August 24, 2011. Motorola explains this cost was a necessary expense to defend issues raised by a discovery motion filed by DHJ. It is apparent that the transcript of that hearing, made available on the docket of the case, was 123 pages in length. DHJ argues that this cost was neither reasonably necessary nor within the rates established by the Judicial Conference. (Objections at 3.)
While the ordering of this transcript was reasonably necessary for Motorola toaddress DHJ's motion to compel production, the cost does exceed the amount permitted by the Judicial Conference. This District's Local Rule 54.1(b) provides that transcript costs are limited to the rates established by the Judicial Conference at the time the depositions were taken: "Except as otherwise ordered by the court, only the cost of the original of such transcript or deposition together with the cost of one copy each where needed by counsel and, for depositions, the copy provided to the court shall be allowed." LR 54.1. The cost for a transcript is set at a maximum of $3.65 per page, plus $.90 for copies to each party. See Maximum Transcript Rates, http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/clerksoffice/CLERKS_OFFICE/CrtReporter/trnscrpt. htm. The cost of the August 24 transcript amounts to $4.81 per page. Because this exceeds the allowable rate, the 123-page transcript shall be allowed as a cost at $3.65 per page, thereby reducing this permitted expense from $591.70 to $448.95.
DHJ objects to some of the fees relating to the deposition of Roger Pilz, DHJ's Sales Manager. Motorola's Amended Bill of Costs identifies four separate charges relating to this deposition, totaling $3,058.75: $1,251.25 for the written transcript; $362.50 for court-reporting services; $1,095.00 for videographer services; and $350.00 for a videographic transcript of the deposition.
Specifically relating to the Pilz deposition, DHJ objects to the transcript deposition team's overtime fee of $187.50, the delivery fees of $21.00, and all the fees relating to the videography of Pilz's deposition, $1,445.00.
Addressing the overtime fee first, Motorola argues that the $187.50 fee wasappropriate here because Pilz was available for a total of two deposition days; however, Motorola provides, DHJ insisted that Pilz's deposition be completed in one day. (Mem. in Support of Am. Bill of Costs at 3-4.) DHJ counters that the Pilz deposition lasted over 8 hours due to Motorola's own lengthy questioning, beyond the 7-hour time limit provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). (Objections at 4.) DHJ's point ignores the fact that had the deposition extended into a second day, the remaining deposition time would still have accrued, and the court reporter would have charged for his or her appearance on Day 2. The court-reporter appearance fee was charged at a rate of $40 per hour. (Bill of Costs at 7.) Moreover, it is possible that other related fees, such as the "videographer setup" fee of $330.00 would have also been charged again on the second day, leading to even more transcription costs for the Pilz deposition. Because the overtime fee was adequately documented and explained, Motorola is entitled to the $187.50 overtime fee.
DHJ also disputes the $21.00 delivery fee relating to the Pilz deposition. Delivery fees incidental to the taking of a deposition have occasionally been allowed in this District when determined to be reasonably necessary. See Manson v. City of Chicago, 825 F. Supp. 2d 952, 958 (N.D. Ill. 2011). However, Motorola, other than asserting that some courts in this District award incidental charges such as delivery fees, makes no attempt to explain why this $21.00 fee is reasonable or necessary. The $21.00 delivery fee for the Pilz deposition is therefore denied. Thus, the $362.50 Motorola seeks for court-reporting services is reduced by $21.00, to $341.50.
DHJ further objects to the videography services relating to the Pilz deposition. Inparticular, DHJ contends, Section 1920 provides for reimbursement of "print or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). DHJ relies on case law from other district courts to support its position that a non-prevailing party should not be taxed for both the stenographic transcript and videographic transcript of a deposition. (Objections at 6.) However, the Seventh Circuit has held that the rules governing costs "allow the costs of both video-recording and stenographic transcription to be taxed to the losing party." Little v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., 514 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 2008) (Little); see also Trading Technologies Intern., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 962, 976 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (Trading Tech). Additionally, Motorola explains why both the stenographic and video transcripts of Pilz's deposition were reasonably necessary: it relied upon the stenographic transcripts in support of its summary judgment motion and intended to use the video-recorded testimony at trial, rather than flying Pilz in from Germany for the trial at a greater expense. (Mem. in Support of Am. Bill of Costs at 5-6.) DHJ counters that Pilz and CEO Harry Gall would have testified in person at trial; but Motorola asserts that at the time of the depositions, it was unclear if they would be presented live at trial. Hence, the costs relating to the videography of Pilz's testimony is allowed in the full amount of $1,445.00 ($1,095.00 for the videographer services and $350.00 for the videography transcript).
DHJ also disputes the expenses sought by Motorola relating to the deposition of Harry Gall, DHJ's CEO from Germany. Motorola's Amended Bill of Costs identifiesfour separate charges relating to the Gall deposition, totaling $1,141.00: $312.00 for the written transcript; $59.00 for court-reporting services; $670.00 for videographer services; and $100.00 for a videographic transcript of the deposition.
DHJ again objects to the $21.00 delivery fee relating to this deposition. As explained above, Motorola provides no explanation to support why the delivery charge is reasonably necessary, other than to state that "other incidental charges (i.e., errata processing fee and delivery...
To continue reading
Request your trial