Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-01122/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-01122-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie Adams
Plaintiff
Gail Gipson
Consol Defendant
James Ivey
Consol Defendant
The City of Montgomery
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE ADAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:11-CV-1122-WKW

 ) (LEAD CASE)

CITY OF MONTGOMERY, )

 )

Defendant. )

WILLIE ADAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:12-CV-523-WKW

 ) (MEMBER CASE)

CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This court entered a memorandum opinion and order granting summary 

judgment and a final judgment in favor of Defendants on September 27, 2013. 

(Docs. # 90, 91.) The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on 

June 20, 2014. (See Doc. # 101.) The court’s final judgment includes no directive 

concerning taxation of costs. 

Before the court is Defendant City of Montgomery’s Bill of Costs and 

Motion for Costs in which the City seeks $2,595.70. (Docs. # 92, 93.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01122-WKW-TFM Document 103 Filed 07/07/14 Page 1 of 7
2

Specifically, the City requests $2,163.45 for transcript expenses and $432.25 for 

the cost of making copies. The Bill of Costs and Motion for Costs are supported 

by the Affidavit of Attorney Stacy Reed explaining her computation of taxable 

costs.

Plaintiff Willie Adams opposes the City’s motion. (Doc. # 95.) Plaintiff 

asserts that the deposition and trial transcripts for which the City is seeking 

reimbursement were not used to support the City’s motion for summary judgment. 

Even if the contested transcript expenses are allowable, Plaintiff argues that the 

City’s Bill of Costs includes additional expenses related to transcript preparation –

such as copies of exhibits and the provision of disks and mini-transcripts – which 

Plaintiff says are non-reimbursable “[l]itigation support material.” (Doc. # 95, 

at 2.) Plaintiff also challenges the City’s request for fees for copying expenses 

because the copies were unnecessary and made merely for defense counsel’s 

convenience. (Doc. # 95, at 2–3.) The City was given an opportunity to file a 

reply (see Doc. # 102), but has not done so.

I. STANDARDS FOR TAXING COSTS

Rule 56(d)(1) provides that “costs . . . should be allowed to the prevailing 

party” absent some contrary federal statute, federal rule, or court order. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(d)(1). Even so, a court retains the discretion to refuse to tax costs. 

Congress has provided that the following costs are taxable:

Case 2:11-cv-01122-WKW-TFM Document 103 Filed 07/07/14 Page 2 of 7
3

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;

(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily 

obtained for use in the case;

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;

(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials 

where the copies are 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.

28 U.S.C. § 1920. Courts are bound by the limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and 

may not allow taxation of additional costs. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, 

Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 445 (1987). The City’s request for costs depends upon 

paragraphs (2) and (4) of § 1920.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Transcripts

Costs for deposition or trial transcripts that were not “necessarily obtained 

for use in the case” are not recoverable. Blevins v. Heilig-Meyers Corp., 184 

F.R.D. 663, 666 (M.D. Ala. 1999) (citing Newman v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 648 

F.2d 330, 337 (5th Cir. 1981)). The question is not whether the party requesting 

reimbursement of costs ultimately used or cited the transcripts. Rather, it is

“whether the depositions appeared reasonably necessary at the time they were 

Case 2:11-cv-01122-WKW-TFM Document 103 Filed 07/07/14 Page 3 of 7
4

taken.” Id. at 667; see also U.S. E.E.O.C v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 622 (11th 

Cir. 2000). Deposition costs that are “incurred for convenience, to aid in a more 

thorough preparation of the case, or for purpose of investigation only” are not 

recoverable. W&O, 213 F.3d at 620. “The burden lies with the challenging party 

to show that the depositions were not related to an issue in the case at the time the 

deposition was taken.” Powell v. The Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., No. 07-80435-

CIV, 2010 WL 4116488, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2010), report and 

recommendation adopted, No. 07-80435-CIV, 2010 WL 4102933 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 

18, 2010).

The City seeks its costs for transcripts of trial1and deposition testimonies by 

Plaintiff and Lead Case Defendants James Ivey and Gail Gipson. The City also 

obtained transcripts of deposition testimony given by Kim McGough, Chris 

Conway, and Thomas Provitt, all of whom were City employees with knowledge 

about the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff stresses that the City did not include the deposition transcripts as 

part of its evidentiary submissions at summary judgment. In support of its 

summary judgment motion, the City submitted affidavit testimony rather than 

deposition testimony, (see Docs. # 36, 37), apparently because it had to meet the 

 

1 Defendant James Ivey testified at trial in a similar but distinct Title VII discrimination

case filed by Plaintiff against the City, Willie Adams v. The City of Montgomery, No. 2:10-cv924-MHT.

Case 2:11-cv-01122-WKW-TFM Document 103 Filed 07/07/14 Page 4 of 7
5

dispositive motion deadline on February 22, 2013, without the benefit of 

depositions. (See Doc. # 38, at ¶ 5) (Rule 56(d) motion filed March 12, 2013, 

where Plaintiff represented that the witnesses had been unavailable for depositions

because of the trial in Plaintiff’s other civil suit against the City before Judge 

Thompson).) Hence, the City obtained the deposition and trial transcripts for 

which it now seeks reimbursement after it filed its motion for summary judgment 

in February 2013. (See Doc. # 93-2, at 1 (listing dates of transcript requests).) 

After the City moved for summary judgment, this court and the Magistrate Judge 

granted several extensions of time to permit Plaintiff to conduct discovery and to 

allow Plaintiff to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not 

file his response in opposition until August 27, 2013. In view of the 

circumstances, the court concludes that the City’s requests for deposition and trial

transcripts between March and July 2013 were reasonably necessary for use in this

case because summary judgment briefing was not complete, discovery was 

ongoing, and it was not yet clear whether any claims would proceed to the trial

scheduled for September 2013. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection to the City’s 

request for taxation of costs for transcripts is due to be overruled.

B. Additional Costs Within Transcript Invoices

Plaintiff also objects to an award of costs for additional expenses on court 

reporters’ invoices for “copies of exhibits, ASCII disk[s], and mini transcript[s].”

Case 2:11-cv-01122-WKW-TFM Document 103 Filed 07/07/14 Page 5 of 7
6

(Doc. # 95, at 2.) Although it may be customary for attorneys to be invoiced for 

copies of exhibits, disks, or condensed transcripts, most courts have concluded that 

such costs are “for the convenience of . . . attorneys” and are not taxable under 

§ 1920. Powell, 2010 WL 4116488, at *10 (collecting cases from federal district 

courts). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection to taxation of these costs is due to be 

sustained, and the City’s request for transcript costs in the amount of $2,163.45 

will be reduced by $282.25 to $1,881.20.

C. Copy Costs

The City seeks costs for 1,729 pages of copies at $0.25 per page. (See Doc. 

# 93-2, at 2.) The City represents that in each of ten instances, two copies were 

made for each of the two City attorneys working on this case, and in three of ten

instances, a third copy was made for the court as a courtesy copy. All of the 

documents on the City’s itemized list were filed electronically with the Clerk of the 

Court, and therefore, defense counsel received the documents electronically in 

PDF format via email. Plaintiff contends that electronic filing eliminated the need 

for defense counsel to generate copies for themselves. He argues that copies made 

“merely for the convenience of counsel” are not recoverable. (Doc. # 95, at 2–3 

(citing Blevins and other cases).)

The case law authorities on which Plaintiff relies are not recent, do not 

specifically address Plaintiff’s argument, and do not account for the legal 

Case 2:11-cv-01122-WKW-TFM Document 103 Filed 07/07/14 Page 6 of 7
7

profession’s shift toward a reliance upon electronic filing and electronic noticing. 

In the absence of some authority declaring it unreasonable or unnecessary for 

counsel to continue to maintain and rely upon hard copies of case files, Plaintiff’s 

objection to the City’s request for copy costs under § 1920(4) is due to be 

overruled.

III. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing findings, it is ORDERED that:

(1) The City’s Motion for Costs (Doc. # 93) is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART;

(2) Plaintiff’s Objections to the City’s Motion for Costs (Doc. # 95) are 

OVERRULED IN PART and SUSTAINED IN PART; and

(3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to tax costs against Plaintiff 

Willie Adams and in favor of the City of Montgomery in the amount of 

$2,313.45.2

DONE this 7th day of July, 2014.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

2

This amount accounts for the City’s adjusted request for $1,881.20 for transcripts and 

for $432.25 for copies.

Case 2:11-cv-01122-WKW-TFM Document 103 Filed 07/07/14 Page 7 of 7