Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02261/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02261-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allstate Insurance Company
Defendant
Leroy Bolex
Defendant
Kathleen Lee Terry
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KATHLEEN LEE TERRY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., et al.,

 Defendants. 

 /

No. Civ. S-05-2261 RRB DAD 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

 Before the court is Kathleen Terry’s (“Plaintiff”) motion 

to review the taxation of Allstate Insurance Company’s 

(“Allstate”) bill of costs filed on August 13, 2007. Allstate, 

the prevailing party, submitted a bill of costs totaling 

$14,915.71, reflecting (1) fees of the clerk ($360.00); (2) fees 

for service of summons and subpoena ($2,410.00); (3) fees of the 

court reporter ($6,839.20); (4) fees for witnesses ($340.00); 

(5) fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily 

obtained for the use in the case ($1,352.64); (6) docket fees 

1

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

($20.00); and (7) other costs ($3,593.87). The clerk taxed 

costs in the amount claimed by Allstate. Plaintiff has timely 

objected to portions of these costs. For the reasons stated 

below, Allstate is entitled to recover $3,837.18 in costs. 

I. 

A. Legal Standard 

 Rule 54 allows a prevailing party to recover costs, other 

than attorney’s fees, unless the court otherwise directs. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d).1 This rule creates a presumption in favor of 

awarding costs to the prevailing party, which can only be 

overcome when the court exercises its discretion to disallow 

costs for specific reasons, which may include punishing 

misconduct by the prevailing party or non-punitive but 

compelling equitable justifications such as a party’s limited 

financial resources. Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. Cal., 

231 F.3d 572, 591-93 (9th Cir. 2000); Champion Produce, Inc. v. 

Ruby Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The losing party bears the burden of establishing why costs 

should not be awarded. Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 

F.3d 932, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2003). In an “ordinary case,” costs 

 

1

 Rule 54(d) states that: “Except when express provision 

therefor is made either in a statute of the United States or in 

these rules, costs other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed 

as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise 

directs. . . .” 

2

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

will be awarded, and if the losing party meets its burden, the 

court must specify reasons for its refusal not to award costs in 

spite of the presumption. Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945; see

Trans Container Services (BASEL) A.G. v. Security Forwarders, 

Inc., 752 F.2d 483, 488 (9th Cir. 1985) (observing that trial 

courts must state reasons for the denial of costs so that the 

appellate court will be able to determine whether or not the 

trial court abused its discretion). 

Under Rule 54(d), trial courts do not have discretion to 

tax whatever costs seem appropriate; rather, courts may tax only 

costs defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters 

Laboratories, Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 176 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing 

Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 

(1987)). “ ‘Section 1920 enumerates expenses that a federal 

court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority found 

in Rule 54(d).’ ” Alflex, 914 F.2d at 176.2 Courts are free to 

interpret the meaning and scope of the items enumerated as 

 

2

 Section 1920 provides: “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.” 

3

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

taxable costs under § 1920. Id. at 177. Once an item is 

determined to fall within § 1920, the power to tax such costs is 

qualified only by the requirement that they be necessarily 

obtained for use in the case. Id. The prevailing party bears 

the burden of stating its costs with the requisite specificity, 

and the prevailing party necessarily assumes the risks inherent 

in a failure to meet that burden. See Mares v. Credit Bureau of 

Raton, 801 F.2d 1197, 1208 (10th Cir. 1986). 

B. Section 1920 

1. Fees of the Clerk 

Allstate seeks to bill $360.00 as taxable costs to 

Plaintiff for fees of the clerk. Of that amount, $250.00 

represents the cost incurred in removing this matter from state 

court, $55.00 represents the cost incurred in filing an answer 

in state court, and $55.00 represents the cost incurred in 

filing a notice of removal in state court. Plaintiff objects to 

each of these cost items on the ground that she lacks the 

financial means to pay for such costs.3 Additionally, Plaintiff 

objects to the costs incurred by Allstate in filing an answer 

 

3

 Plaintiff seeks to set aside Allstate’s bill of costs 

based on her limited financial resources. The court will 

discuss this issue below. See Stanley v. University of Southern 

California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999) (directing 

courts to consider the financial resources of the plaintiff in 

awarding costs against a plaintiff). 

4

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 4 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and a notice of removal in state court on the ground that such 

costs are unrecoverable under § 1920. 

Because the cost of filing a copy of a notice of removal 

from state court is a taxable cost under § 1920(1), the court 

concludes that Allstate is entitled to recover $250.00 for 

removing this matter from state court. See McGuigan v. CAE Link 

Corp., 155 F.R.D. 31, 37 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (cost of filing a copy 

of the notice of removal from state court is a taxable cost 

under § 1920(1)). However, because § 1920 does not authorize 

the taxing of state court filing fees, the court concludes that 

Allstate is not entitled to recover its costs incurred in filing 

an answer and a notice of removal in state court. See Pershern 

v. Fiatallis North America, Inc., 834 F.2d 136, 140 (8th Cir. 

1987); Lawrence v. Chancery Court of Tennessee, 188 F.3d 687, 

693 (6th Cir. 1999). 

 Accordingly, Allstate is entitled to recover $250.00 as 

fees of the clerk. 

 2. Fees for Service of Summons and Subpoena 

 Allstate seeks to bill $2,410.00 as taxable costs to 

Plaintiff for costs incurred for service of summonses and 

subpoenas. Of that amount, $55.00 represents the cost incurred 

for service of Leroy Bolex (underlying defendant). The 

remainder of the costs ($2,365.00) represents the costs incurred 

for service of summonses and subpoenas on physicians and other 

5

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 5 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

healthcare related individuals. Plaintiff objects to the cost 

incurred by Allstate for service of Mr. Bolex on the ground that 

this cost exceeds the amount set by 28 C.F.R. § 0.114(a)(3). 

Plaintiff objects to the remaining costs on the ground that such 

costs were not necessarily obtained for use in this case. 

 Because the cost incurred for service of a summons and 

subpoena is recoverable under § 1920(1), and because the cost 

incurred for service of Mr. Bolex was reasonable under 28 C.F.R. 

§ 0.114(a)(3),4 the court concludes that Allstate is entitled to 

recover $55.00 incurred in serving Mr. Bolex.5 With respect to 

Allstate’s costs incurred in serving physicians and other 

healthcare related individuals, the court concludes that 

Allstate is not entitled to recover such costs because these 

costs were not necessarily obtained for use in this case. This 

is because Plaintiff’s medical condition was not an issue before 

4

 28 C.F.R. § 0.114(a)(3) states that: “The United States 

Marshals Service shall routinely collect fees according to the 

following schedule: . . . For process served or executed 

personally--$45 per hour (or portion thereof) for each item 

served by one U.S. Marshals Service employee, agent, or 

contractor, plus travel costs and any other out-of-pocket 

expenses.” 

5

 While § 0.114(a)(3) provides that personal service of 

process by the U.S. Marshals Service is to cost $45.00 per hour, 

it also allows for travel costs and other-out-of-pocket 

expenses. Therefore, because the documentation submitted by 

Allstate demonstrates that $10.00 was added for service of Mr. 

Bolex due to distant travel, the court concludes that a $55.00 

charge in this regard is reasonable. 

6

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 6 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the court since the underlying judgment was the result of an 

uncontested bench trial that proceeded in the nature of a proveup hearing. See Garamendi v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co., 116 

Cal.App.4th 694, 711 (2004) (holding that a final judgment 

entered into against an insured, including all material findings 

of fact essential to the judgment of liability and damages of 

the insured, is binding on the insurer where the judgment is the 

result of a default hearing following a settlement or an 

uncontested trial where the insured settled with the claimant 

and thereafter presented no defense). 

 Accordingly, Allstate is entitled to recover $55.00 for 

service of process costs. 

3. Fees of the Court Reporter 

 Allstate seeks to bill $6,839.20 as taxable costs to 

Plaintiff for fees of the court reporter. In this regard, 

Allstate seeks to recover for the cost incurred in obtaining a 

transcript of the underlying bench trial and for the costs 

incurred in videotaping and obtaining stenographic transcripts 

of depositions. Plaintiff objects to the cost incurred by 

Allstate in obtaining the underlying bench trial transcript on 

the ground that this cost was not necessarily obtained for use 

in this case. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to the costs 

incurred by Allstate in videotaping and obtaining stenographic 

transcripts of depositions insofar as Allstate seeks to recover 

7

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 7 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for both videotaping a deposition and obtaining a stenographic 

copy of that deposition. Finally, Plaintiff objects to the 

costs incurred by Allstate in deposing physician witnesses on 

the ground that such costs were not necessarily obtained for use 

in this case. 

 Section 1920(2) authorizes the taxation of costs for the 

“[f]ees of the court reporter for all or any part of the 

stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the 

case,” which includes the costs of deposition transcripts, EEOC 

v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 624 (11th Cir. 2000), and the cost 

of transcripts from other court proceedings. Majeske v. City of 

Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 825 (7th Cir. 2000); see Alflex, 914 F.2d 

at 176 n.3 (italics omitted) (observing that “there is much 

support for the proposition that section 1920(2) covers the cost 

of deposition transcripts, as well as trial transcripts.”). 

Costs for depositions transcripts and transcripts from other 

court proceedings are taxable only if they were “necessarily 

obtained” for use in the case. See EEOC, 213 F.3d at 624; 

Majeske, 218 F.3d at 825; see also Evanow v. M/V Neptune, 163 

F.3d 1108, 1118 (9th Cir. 1998) (deposition costs are taxable if 

they are reasonably necessary for trial). “[W]here the 

deposition costs were merely incurred for convenience, to aid in 

thorough preparation, or for purposes of investigation only, the 

costs are not recoverable.” EEOC, 213 F.3d at 624; see Majeske, 

8

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 8 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

218 F.3d at 825 (courts may not tax the costs of transcripts 

provided merely for the convenience of the requesting attorney). 

 Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Allstate 

is entitled to recover the cost it incurred in obtaining the 

underlying bench trial transcript because it was obtained for 

use in this case. With respect to deposition costs, the court 

concludes that Allstate is not entitled to recover the costs it 

incurred for both videotaping a deposition and obtaining a 

stenographic transcript of that deposition. While several 

courts have awarded costs under § 1920 for both transcribing and 

videotaping a deposition, see Nederhiser v. Foxworth, 2007 WL 

1378602, * 2 (D. Or. 2007) (citing cases), Allstate is not 

entitled to recover for both costs because it failed to provide 

a rationale justifying why both were necessary for the 

litigation. See id. (observing that an award of costs for both 

transcribing and videotaping a deposition turns on whether both 

are reasonably necessary, which requires a showing beyond 

convenience or duplication to ensure alternative methods of 

presenting materials at trial); see also Cherry v. Champion 

Intern Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 449 (4th Cir. 1999) (absent a 

showing that both transcribing and videotaping a deposition were 

“necessarily obtained for use in the case,” only the 

transcription costs are recoverable). 

9

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 9 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, Allstate is not entitled to recover the costs 

it incurred for both videotaping a deposition and obtaining a 

stenographic transcript of that deposition. Allstate is only 

entitled to recover the costs it incurred in obtaining 

stenographic transcripts of such depositions. Additionally, the 

court concludes that Allstate is not entitled to recover the 

costs it incurred in obtaining the deposition transcripts of 

physicians because these depositions were not necessarily 

obtained for use in this case as Plaintiff’s medical condition 

was not an issue before the court. See Garamendi, 116 

Cal.App.4th at 711. 

 Accordingly, Allstate is entitled to recover $3,258.99 in 

court reporter costs. 

4. Fees for Witnesses 

 Allstate seeks to bill $340.00 as taxable costs to 

Plaintiff for witness fees. Plaintiff objects to these costs on 

the ground that such fees are unrecoverable as physician witness 

depositions were not necessarily obtained for use in this case. 

The court agrees. The attendance of physicians at depositions 

was not necessary in this case because Plaintiff’s medical 

condition was not an issue before the court. See Garamendi, 116 

Cal.App.4th at 711. 

Accordingly, Allstate is not entitled to recover witness 

fees costs. 

10

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 10 of 16
1 5. Fees for Exemplification and Copies of Papers 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Allstate seeks to bill $1,352.64 as taxable costs to 

Plaintiff for exemplification and copies of papers. Plaintiff 

objects to these costs on the ground that Allstate seeks 

unrecoverable and unspecified fees exceeding what is fair and 

reasonable. 

Photocopying is a taxable cost pursuant to § 1920(4). See

EEOC, 213 F.3d at 622 (§ 1920(4) permits taxation of “[f]ees for 

exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for 

use in the case”); Allison v. Bank One-Denver, 289 F.3d 1223, 

1249 (10th Cir. 2002) (copying and exemplification costs are 

allowed only when necessary to a party’s case). “[I]n 

evaluating copying costs, the court should consider whether the 

prevailing party could have reasonably believed that it was 

necessary to copy the papers at issue.” EEOC, 213 F.3d at 623. 

After reviewing the documentation submitted in this regard, the 

court concludes that Allstate is entitled to recover its 

photocopying costs, except for its costs incurred in copying 

medical files as Allstate could not have reasonably believed it 

was necessary to copy these papers in light of the holding in 

Garamendi, 116 Cal.App.4th 694. 

 Accordingly, Allstate is entitled to recover $253.19 in 

copying costs. 

// 

11

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 11 of 16
1 6. Other Costs: Deposition Travel Expenses, Expert Witness 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Fees & Docket Fees 

 Allstate seeks to bill $918.87 as taxable costs to 

Plaintiff for attorney travel expenses (e.g., mileage, meals, 

parking and bridge toll costs), $2,675.00 for expert witness 

fees and $20.00 in docket fees. Plaintiff objects to each of 

these cost items on the ground that such costs are 

unrecoverable. 

With respect to travel expenses incurred by Allstate’s 

attorneys, the court concludes that Allstate is not entitled to 

recover such costs under § 1920. See U.S. ex rel. Stierli v. 

Shasta Services Inc., 2007 WL 1516934, * 1 (E.D. Cal. 2007); 

Embotelladora Agral Regiomontana, S.A. de C.V. v. Sharp Capital, 

Inc., 952 F.Supp. 415, 418 (N.D. Tex. 1997); Yasui v. Maui Elec. 

Co., Ltd., 78 F.Supp.2d 1124, 1130 (D. Hawaii 1999). With 

respect to expert witness fees incurred by Allstate (i.e., the 

deposition appearance fees of three physicians), the court 

concludes that Allstate is not entitled to recover such costs 

under § 1920. See Sorbo v. United Parcel Service, 432 F.3d 

1169, 1179 (10th Cir. 2005) (fees and expenses incurred in 

connection with expert witnesses (in excess of the standard 

witness fee listed in § 1920(3) and fixed by 28 U.S.C. § 1821) 

are not within the scope of § 1920 and therefore are not 

12

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 12 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

recoverable as costs).6 Finally, with respect to the docket fees 

incurred by Allstate, the court concludes that Allstate is 

entitled to recover such costs under § 1920(5). 

Accordingly, Allstate is entitled to recover $20.00 in 

other costs. Allstate is therefore entitled to a total cost 

award of $3,837.18. Next, the court will determine whether 

Plaintiff’s financial condition warrants a reduction in 

Allstate’s cost award. 

C. Plaintiff’s Inability to Pay Costs 

 Plaintiff seeks to set aside Allstate’s bill of costs on 

the basis of her limited financial resources. To prove her 

inability to pay for Allstate’s costs Plaintiff has submitted a 

declaration attesting that both she and her husband are both 

unemployed and suffer from serious medical conditions. Decl. of 

Kathleen Terry (“Terry”) ¶ 2. Plaintiff further attests that 

her household monthly income is $760.00 in Social Security 

Disability Benefits and that she has a monthly mortgage payment 

of $1,195, credit card debt of approximately $18,000, and owes 

$6,443 in litigation costs. Id. ¶¶ 2, 4-6. Finally, Plaintiff 

attests that she has no financial assets, except for a bank 

6

 Alternatively, because Plaintiff’s medical condition was 

not an issue before the court, the attendance of physicians at 

depositions was not necessary for this case. See Garamendi, 116 

Cal.App.4th at 711. Therefore, the fees and expenses incurred 

by Allstate in this regard are unrecoverable on this independent 

ground. 

13

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 13 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

account containing approximately $1,300 and a 1979 pick-up 

truck. Id. ¶¶ 3, 7. Plaintiff asserts that if she is required 

to pay Allstate’s costs she will be unable to afford the common 

necessaries of life. Id. ¶ 8. In response, Allstate argues 

that Plaintiff is not without the means to satisfy Allstate’s 

bill of costs because she is the co-owner of real property 

valued at $265,938. 

 Trial courts may consider a variety of factors in deciding 

whether to award costs, including whether the losing party has 

limited financial resources. See Ass’n of Mexican-American 

Educators, 231 F.3d at 592; Stanley, 178 F.3d at 1079 (stating 

that indigency is a factor district courts may properly consider 

when deciding whether to award costs); Rivera v. City of 

Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634-35 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing cases) (it 

is within the discretion of the district court to consider a 

plaintiff’s indigency in denying costs).7 In considering whether 

to hold an indigent party liable for costs, the district court 

must conduct a two-step analysis: (1) the court must make a 

 

7

 The Ninth Circuit has approved refusing to award costs to 

a prevailing party when the losing party has limited financial 

resources. See National Org. for Women v. Bank of Cal., 680 

F.2d 1291, 1294 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Wrighten v. 

Metropolitan Hosps., Inc., 726 F.2d 1346, 1358 (9th Cir. 1984); 

Moore v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., 708 F.2d 475, 486 (9th Cir. 

1983). “[T]he losing party bears the burden of making the 

showing that an award is inequitable under the circumstances.” 

In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 221 F.3d 449, 462-63 (3d 

Cir. 2000). 

14

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 14 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

threshold factual finding that the losing party is incapable of 

paying the court-imposed costs at this time or in the future; 

and (2) the court should consider the amount of costs, the good 

faith of the losing party, and the closeness and difficulty of 

the issues raised by the case. Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635. When 

using its discretion to deny or award costs, the court should 

provide an explanation of its reasons. Id. at 635-36.

Although the court is not unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s 

limited financial resources, it does not find that Plaintiff’s 

argument advanced in this regard is sufficiently persuasive to 

overcome the presumption that a prevailing party is entitled to 

its costs under Rule 54(d). Plaintiff did not prove that 

Allstate engaged in misconduct or that this case involved 

complex issues presenting difficult or close legal questions. 

Nor did Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrate that she is incapable 

of paying Allstate’s costs in the future. While the court 

acknowledges that requiring Plaintiff’s to pay even a portion of 

Allstate’s costs will cause her to suffer hardship, it does not 

find that this case is “the rare occasion where severe injustice 

will result from an award of costs (such as the injustice that 

would result from an indigent plaintiff’s being forced to pay 

tens of thousands of dollars of her alleged oppressor’s legal 

costs).” See Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945. 

15

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 15 of 16
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, because a sum of $3,837.18 is not an 

exorbitant cost given the nature of the underlying litigation, 

and because Plaintiff has not presented any specific evidence of 

misconduct on the part of Allstate that would justify setting 

aside the bill of costs, Allstate is entitled to recover costs 

in the amount of $3,837.18. However, because Plaintiff cannot 

pay the costs in full, the court will impose a plan that assures 

payment of costs without placing a punitive burden on her. On 

or before the 15th day of each month, beginning in December, 

2007, Plaintiff Kathleen Terry will pay the sum of $50.00 per 

month for seventy-six consecutive months and the sum of $37.18 

on the seventy-seventh month. 

II. 

 For the reasons stated above, Allstate is entitled to 

recover $3,837.18 in costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2007. 

 s/RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-02261-RRB-DAD Document 72 Filed 11/01/07 Page 16 of 16