Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_04-cv-00184/USCOURTS-almd-1_04-cv-00184-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 38:4311 Uniformed Service Employment/Reemployment Rights Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE BRINKLEY, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:04cv184-MHT

) (WO)

DIALYSIS CLINIC, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

In this lawsuit, plaintiffs Willie Brinkley, Jerome

Cotton, and Kimberly Bush charged defendant Dialysis

Clinic, Inc. (“DCI”) with racial discrimination in

employment, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981; Brinkley also claimed that

DCI discharged him because of his National Guard

membership, in violation of the Uniformed Services

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), 38

U.S.C. § 4311. The court granted summary judgment in

favor of DCI on all the plaintiffs’ claims except

Case 1:04-cv-00184-MHT-VPM Document 98 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 8
2

Brinkley’s USERRA claim, Brinkley v. Dialysis Clinic,

Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 1090 (M.D. Ala. 2005) (Thompson, J.),

and later a jury returned a verdict in favor of DCI on

the USERRA claim.

This cause is now before the court on DCI’s bill of

costs and motion for allowance of costs and on Brinkley’s

objection to costs.

I. Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that

“costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of

course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise

directs.” In its bill of costs, DCI argues that it is

a prevailing party entitled to costs, at least with

respect to the race-discrimination claims, and it seeks

to recover a total of $ 2,884.43 for the following costs:

(1) Fees for service of summons and

subpoena: $60.00;

Case 1:04-cv-00184-MHT-VPM Document 98 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 8
1. Defendant’s brief in response to plaintiff’s

objection to costs (Doc. No. 93), p. 3.

3

(2) Fees of the court reporter for

depositions and transcripts:

$1,926.00;

(3) Fees for witnesses: $64.69; and

(4) Fees for exemplification and copies

of papers: $833.74.

DCI concedes that all costs, other than those related

to the deposition transcripts, “were incurred in

connection with the trial of ... Brinkley’s USERRA

claim,”1

 and the plain language of USERRA precludes the

taxation of any costs incurred in pursuing an USERRA

claim. USERRA provides: “No fees or court costs may be

charged or taxed against any person claiming rights under

this chapter.” 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(1). See Chance v.

Dallas County Hosp. Dist., 176 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 1999)

(a plaintiff who asserts multiple claims and does not

prevail may be taxed costs except as to those

Case 1:04-cv-00184-MHT-VPM Document 98 Filed 03/01/06 Page 3 of 8
4

attributable to the filing and advancing of an USERRA

claim).

In light of Brinkley’s objection, DCI appears to

understand that it cannot recover trial-related costs.

It now seeks only those related to the depositions--a

total of $ 1,926.00--because the depositions were not

related solely to Brinkley’s USERRA claim; in fact, most

of them focused on the race-discrimination claims, and

those portions relating to plaintiffs Cotton and Bush had

nothing whatsoever to do with the USERRA claim. 

As a threshold matter, it is appropriate for DCI to

seek costs incurred in the taking of depositions. Costs

may properly 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. Kolesar,

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

Roadway Express, 158 F.Supp.2d 1304, 1310 (M.D. Ala.

Case 1:04-cv-00184-MHT-VPM Document 98 Filed 03/01/06 Page 4 of 8
2. 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.

5

2001) (Thompson, J.).2

 Costs incurred in obtaining copies

of deposition transcripts are also recoverable. Id. at

837-39.

Moreover, the fact that all the race-discrimination

claims were disposed of prior to trial on the basis of

DCI’s motion for summary judgment is not fatal to DCI’s

claim for costs. As long as the depositions were

reasonably necessary for use in the case, the fact that

a court disposed of the case at the summary-judgment

stage is no impediment to an award of costs for them.

Blevins v. Heilig-Meyers Corp., 184 F.R.D. 663, 666 (M.D.

Ala. 1999) (Thompson, J.); see also United States EEOC v.

W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 621 (11th Cir. 2000) (costs

relating to the taking and transcribing of depositions

are taxable if they are, wholly or partially, necessarily

obtained for use in the case.) “[T]he determination of

Case 1:04-cv-00184-MHT-VPM Document 98 Filed 03/01/06 Page 5 of 8
6

necessity must be made in light of the facts known at the

time of the deposition, without regard to any intervening

developments that later rendered the depositions unneeded

for further use.” Hudson, 758 F.2d at 1243.

DCI attributed $ 1,926.00 in cost to the deposition

transcripts, itemized as follows:

(1) Depositions of plaintiffs Brinkley,

Bush, and Cotton: $ 1,465.00;

(2) Depositions of Kyle Weaver (DCI

administrator), Gill Lawson ((DCI

chief technician), and Diane

Herring (DCI employee): $ 376.50;

and

(3) Deposition of Mona Gautney (DCI

supervising nurse manager):

$ 84.50. 

The deposition witnesses itemized above were the

plaintiffs as well as DCI representatives and employees.

Each of these individuals was listed on both parties’

Case 1:04-cv-00184-MHT-VPM Document 98 Filed 03/01/06 Page 6 of 8
7

witness lists, and Brinkley has made no argument that

plaintiffs’ depositions were not reasonably necessary for

use in the case at the time they were taken.

Brinkley does argue, however, that he should not be

taxed costs resulting from the involvement of coplaintiffs in the case. In response, DCI suggests that

the $ 1,926.00 in deposition cost should be apportioned

equally among the three plaintiffs. 

The court finds that, at the time they were taken,

the itemized depositions were necessary to both prosecute

and defend the race-discrimination claims and that the

three plaintiffs should each bear an equal share of the

costs. 

II. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, and upon consideration of

Brinkley’s objection to DCI’s bill of costs, the court

concludes that costs should be disallowed in the amount

of $ 958.43 (costs related to the trial of the USERRA

Case 1:04-cv-00184-MHT-VPM Document 98 Filed 03/01/06 Page 7 of 8
claim) and allowed in the amount of $ 1,926.00, the

liability for which is to be apportioned equally among

the three plaintiffs in the case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff Willie Brinkley’s objection to costs

(Doc. No. 91) is sustained to the extent that $ 958.43 of

the requested costs are disallowed, and the objection is

overruled in all other respects;

(2) Defendant Dialysis Clinic, Inc.’s motion for

allowance of costs (Doc. No. 88) is granted in the amount

of $ 1,926.00, to be apportioned equally among plaintiffs

Brinkley, Jerome Cotton, and Kimberly Bush, and the

motion is denied in all other respects; and

(3) Defendant Dialysis Clinic, Inc. shall have and

recover from each of plaintiffs Brinkley, Cotton, and

Bush the sum of $ 642.00, for which execution may issue.

DONE this the 1st day of March, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00184-MHT-VPM Document 98 Filed 03/01/06 Page 8 of 8