Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-cv-01314/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-cv-01314-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DALE A. ZEIGLER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:02cv1314-MHT

) (WO)

CHARLES E. SHANER and )

CITY OF MONTGOMERY, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

In this lawsuit, plaintiff Dale A. Zeigler charged

defendant City of Montgomery with race discrimination and

retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a, 2000e

through 2000e-17, and charged the city and defendant

Charles E. Shaner with race discrimination in violation

of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

1981. Zeigler also asserted the following state lawclaims: negligence by the city; and invasion of privacy,

outrage, and assault by Shaner. On March 23, 2004, this

Case 2:02-cv-01314-MHT-CSC Document 98 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 11
2

court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor

of the city and Shaner on Zeigler’s federal claims;

dismissing Zeigler’s state-law claims without prejudice;

and ordering costs taxed against Zeigler. 

This cause is now before the court on Shaner’s bill

of costs and on Zeigler’s motion to strike the bill of

costs. 

I. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides

that “costs other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed

as of course to the prevailing party unless the court

otherwise directs.” In his bill of costs, Shaner seeks

to recover a total of $ 2,944.36 for the following costs:

(1) Fees of the court reporter for

depositions and transcripts: $ 1,393.90;

(2) Fees and disbursements for

printing: $ 1,386.32;

(3) Fees for witnesses: $ 43.64; 

Case 2:02-cv-01314-MHT-CSC Document 98 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 11
3

(4) Fees for exemplification and copies

of papers: $ 30.00; and

(5) Postage: $ 90.50. 

(1) Depositions and transcripts

The $ 1,393.90 in court reporter fees that Shaner

seeks can be broken down as follows: 

(1) Deposition transcript of plaintiff

Zeigler: $ 641.55;

(2) Condensed version and ASCII disk of

Zeigler’s deposition: $ 45.00;

(3) Deposition transcript of Barbara

Montoya: $ 157.25;

(4) Exhibits attached to Montoya’s

deposition: $ 15.50;

(5) Trial testimony of plaintiff

Zeilger, Johnny Sanders, and Thomas

Reinhart: $ 534.60.

Case 2:02-cv-01314-MHT-CSC Document 98 Filed 03/24/06 Page 3 of 11
1. In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th

Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions

of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the

close of business on September 30, 1981.

4

Zeigler moves to strike the fees of the court reporter

for the cost of his and Montoya’s depositions because the

city was already reimbursed for making copies of the same

two depositions in a separate bill of costs. This court

granted the city’s bill of costs for the depositions of

Zeigler and Montoya ($ 1289.25), which included the

condensed version and ASCII disk of Zeigler’s deposition,

but did not include the exhibits in Montoya’s deposition.

Costs may include the fees of a court reporter for

“all or any part of the stenographic transcript

necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C.

1920(2). Depositions are included in the phrase

“stenographic transcript.” United States v. Kolestar,

313 F.2d 835, 837-38 (5th Cir. 1963); Coleman v. Roadway

Express, 158 F.Supp.2d 1304, 1310 (M.D. Ala. 2001).1 The

Case 2:02-cv-01314-MHT-CSC Document 98 Filed 03/24/06 Page 4 of 11
5

costs of obtaining copies of deposition transcripts are

recoverable as well. Id. at 837-39. 

However, deposition costs incurred merely for

convenience are not recoverable. Blevins v. HelligMeyers, Corp., 184 F.R.D. 663, 666 (M.D. Ala. 1999).

Extra copies of depositions are considered to be obtained

for the convenience of counsel and are not ordinarily

taxable. Sun Ship, Inc. v. Lehman, 655 F.2d 1311, 1318

(D.C. Cir. 1981). Because Shaner has not offered any

reason for the need to duplicate the city’s copy of

Zeigler and Montoya’s depositions, the court will not

allow Shaner to collect the fees charged for an

additional copy of the regular ($ 641.55 and $ 157.25)

and condensed deposition materials ($ 45.00) already

possessed by the city, but it will allow the $ 15.50 fee

for copying the exhibits attached to Montoya’s deposition

because they were not previously copied by the city. 

Zeigler also moves to strike the $ 534.60 Shaner

incurred in obtaining his trial testimony and the trial

Case 2:02-cv-01314-MHT-CSC Document 98 Filed 03/24/06 Page 5 of 11
6

testimony of two other individuals in a related case as

premature and unnecessary. These costs will be allowed

because these individuals were listed by Zeigler as

witnesses in this matter; their testimony was taken in a

case involving the conduct of defendant Shaner at the

same workplace; and Shaner planned to use this testimony

to impeach these witnesses in the instant case. 

(2) Copying

The court notes, at the outset, that Shaner

erroneously categorizes $ 1,386.32 in photocopying costs

as printing costs. The court will therefore add these

costs to his existing $ 30.00 in copying costs for a new

total of $ 1,416.32. 

Zeigler moves to strike $ 612.22 of these costs,

which Shaner incurred in making ten copies of his

exhibits for use at trial. “Copies attributable to

discovery, copies of pleadings, correspondence, documents

tendered to the opposing party, copies of exhibits, and

Case 2:02-cv-01314-MHT-CSC Document 98 Filed 03/24/06 Page 6 of 11
7

documents prepared for the Court’s consideration are

recoverable.” Desisto College v. Town of Howey-in-theHills, 718 F. Supp. 906, 913 (M.D. Fla. 1989) aff’d, 914

F.2d 267 (11th Cir. 1990)(table); Blevins, 184 F.R.D. at

668. Shaner may recover for this expense because the

court required that each of the ten jurors receive a copy

of the trial exhibits. 

Zeigler also moves to strike the $ 30.00 Shaner seeks

for the documents he obtained from Zeigler’s physician

because Shaner never addressed any issue to the court or

to him regarding the records. Shaner’s costs may

properly include “fees for exemplification and copies of

papers necessarily obtained for use in trial.” 28 U.S.C.

1920(4). Shaner argues that records of Zeigler’s

treating physician were relevant and necessarily obtained

for trial because Zeigler sought recovery for mental

anguish. The court agrees.

Finally, Zeigler rightly protests the remaining

copying fees ($ 774.10) because Shaner does not provide

Case 2:02-cv-01314-MHT-CSC Document 98 Filed 03/24/06 Page 7 of 11
8

sufficient information about the substance of the copies

made. “The party seeking recovery of photocopying costs

must come forward with evidence showing the nature of the

documents copied, including how they were used or

intended to be used in the case.” Helms v. Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1568, 1570 (N.D. Ga. 1992);

Cullens v. Georgia Dept. of Transp., 29 F.3d 1489, 1494

(11th Cir. 1994). Shaner merely lists the date and

number of copies made.

Since Shaner has not adequately itemized these

photocopying costs ($ 774.10), the court will strike all

of these costs, and allow only the $ 642.22 ($ 612.22 and

$ 30.00) fees discussed above whose substance was

specifically and adequately delineated.

(3) Witnesses

 Zeigler moves to strike the $ 43.64 in witness fees

for Andrea Shay Redden because the purpose of this

subpoena is unclear and the witness was available for

Case 2:02-cv-01314-MHT-CSC Document 98 Filed 03/24/06 Page 8 of 11
2. Shaner’s Response to Zeigler’s motion to strike

the bill of costs, (Doc. No. 89), Exhibit D, Affidavit of

Tracy Arthur.

9

testimony without charge as a city employee. Zeigler’s

objection to this fee is without merit because Shaner’s

bill of costs does not seek to recover any witness fees

for Redden. Rather, the bill of costs lists Tracey

Arthur as the witness for whom Shaner is seeking costs.

Arthur is a former city employee, previously employed at

the workplace at issue who allegedly observed certain

events in this matter.2

 As such, the court will allow

this witness fee.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and upon consideration of

Zeigler’s motion to strike Shaner’s bill of costs, the

court concludes that costs should be allowed in the

amount of $ 1326.46 and disallowed in the amount of

$ 1617.90, as follows:

Case 2:02-cv-01314-MHT-CSC Document 98 Filed 03/24/06 Page 9 of 11
10

Requested Disallowed Allowed

Fees of

court

reporter

$ 1,393.90 $ 843.80 $ 550.10 

Fees for

copies/

papers 

$ 1,416.32 $ 774.10 $ 642.22

Fees for

witnesses

$ 43.64 $ 0 $ 43.64

Fees for

Postage 

$ 90.50 $ 0 $ 90.50 

TOTAL $ 2,944.36 $ 1617.90 $ 1326.46 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff Dale A. Zeigler’s motion to strike the

bill of costs, (Doc. No. 87) is granted to the

extent that $ 1617.90 of the requested costs are

disallowed.

(2) Said motion is denied to the extent that

$ 1326.46 of the requested costs are allowed.

(3) Defendant Charles E. Shaner’s bill of costs,

(Doc. No. 86) is granted in the amount of

$ 1326.46.

Case 2:02-cv-01314-MHT-CSC Document 98 Filed 03/24/06 Page 10 of 11
(4) Costs in the amount of $ 1326.46 are taxed

against plaintiff Zeigler, for which execution

may issue.

DONE, this the 24th day of March, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

N:\JUDGES\THOMPSON\JUDGE\Archives\2002\02-1314 court cost.wpd

Case 2:02-cv-01314-MHT-CSC Document 98 Filed 03/24/06 Page 11 of 11