1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22496-KMM

RICARDO LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Motion 

for Bill of Costs (ECF No. 83). The Motion was referred to the undersigned United States 

Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the 

Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, by the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United 

States District Judge (ECF No. 84). Being duly advised in the premises and the Motion being 

functionally unopposed, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Costs 

be GRANTED, in part.

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Ricardo Lopez initiated the instant suit alleging certain violations of the Real 

Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. and the implementing

regulations codified at 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41, et seq., by Defendant (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 96–195). 

Following a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Strike that were both resolved in Defendant’s 

favor, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims (ECF 

Case 1:20-cv-22496-KMM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2021 Page 1 of 5
2

No. 51). The District Court granted Defendant’s Motion on all counts, finding Plaintiff’s claims 

barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine (ECF No. 81), and the Court subsequently entered 

Final Judgment in favor of Defendant (ECF No. 82). As the prevailing party, Defendant filed 

a Motion to Bill Costs (ECF No. 83).

Defendant’s Motion seeks costs in the amount of $3,300.00 in transcription and court 

reporter fees incurred attendant to taking the depositions of Plaintiff and his wife (ECF No. 83 

at 5-6 of 121

). Defendant attached invoices in support of its request to tax costs (id. at 7-12). 

The certificate of conferral filed by Defendant states that Plaintiff’s counsel objects to the relief 

sought with no further explanation (id. at 6); Plaintiff filed no response to Defendant’s Motion, 

however, and the time to do so has long since passed. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c) (“[E]ach party 

opposing a motion shall file and serve an opposing memorandum of law no later than fourteen 

(14) days after service of the motion.”). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Defendant, as the prevailing party, is entitled to recuperate costs associated with the 

litigation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) allows prevailing parties to receive 

litigation costs other than attorney’s fees. There is a “strong presumption” in favor of awarding 

taxable costs to the prevailing party, which the challenging party has the burden to overcome. 

Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, a 

district court may tax as costs: “(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 

1 All citations to Defendant’s Motions to Bill Costs are made with reference to the electronic pagination. 

Case 1:20-cv-22496-KMM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2021 Page 2 of 5
3

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.” “[A]bsent explicit statutory or contractual authorization, federal 

courts are bound by the limitations set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1920.” Arcadian Fertilizer, L.P. v. 

MPW Indus. Servs., Inc., 249 F.3d 1293, 1296 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “The party 

seeking costs bears the burden of submitting a request for expenses that enables the court to 

determine what expenses were incurred and whether those expenses meet the proof of necessity 

and reasonableness under 28 U.S.C. 1920.” Shave v. Stanford Fin. Grp., Inc., No. 07-60749-

CIV, 2008 WL 3200705, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2008).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks costs of $3,300 in costs consisting of the following: (1) the court 

reporter fee ($270.00) and transcript fee ($1,287.00) incurred in deposing Plaintiff; and (2) the 

court reporter fee ($755.00) and transcript fee ($988.00) incurred in deposing Plaintiff’s wife 

(ECF No. 83 at 5). 

The costs for deposition transcripts are taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) so long as the 

transcripts were “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” U.S. E.E.O.C. v. W&O, Inc., 213 

F.3d 600, 620-21 (11th Cir. 2000). In determining the necessity of a deposition, it must only 

appear to have been reasonably necessary at the time it was taken. Id. Additionally, “[b]ecause 

the parties presumably have equal knowledge of the basis for each deposition,” the party who 

challenges the proposed costs “bears the burden of showing that specific deposition costs or a 

court reporter’s fee was not necessary for use in the case or that the deposition was not related 

to an issue present in the case at the time of the deposition.” George v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 

07-80019-CIV, 2008 WL 2571348, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2008).

Case 1:20-cv-22496-KMM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2021 Page 3 of 5
4

Not all deposition costs, however, are recoverable. Miscellaneous costs associated with 

deposition transcripts, such as shipping and handling, expedited delivery of transcripts, exhibit 

costs, or condensed transcripts, are not taxable because generally, they are incurred for 

convenience of counsel, as opposed to being necessarily obtained for use in the case. See 

Watson v. Lake Cty., 492 F. App’x 991, 997 (11th Cir. 2012) (“§ 1920 does not authorize 

recovery of costs for shipment of depositions”); Garden-Aire Vill. S. Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. QBE 

Ins. Corp., No. 10-61985-CIV, 2013 WL 12086655, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2013).

As noted, Plaintiff raises no challenge to the necessity of the two depositions taken here, 

and the necessity is facially evident in any event given that Plaintiff brought the action, the 

Complaint for which is replete with descriptions of actions taken by Plaintiff and his wife during 

the first and second loss mitigation processes forming the basis of Plaintiff’s claims (ECF No. 

1). Included in Defendant’s invoices, however, are three charges for “Electronic Delivery and 

Handling” totaling $84.00 (ECF No. 83 at 8, 11-12). Defendant offers no explanation for these

charges, and thus the Court has no basis upon which to conclude that such electronic delivery 

and handling was reasonably necessary to the litigation rather than requested for the 

convenience of counsel. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s Motion 

to Bill Costs be reduced by the amount of the delivery and handling fees. 

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that Defendant’s Motion to Bill Costs (ECF 

No. 93) be GRANTED, in part, and that Defendant be awarded a total of $ 3,216.00. 

A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation 

with the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United States District Court Judge for the Southern 

District of Florida, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of being served with a copy of this Report 

Case 1:20-cv-22496-KMM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2021 Page 4 of 5
5

and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will bar a de novo determination by the 

District Judge of anything in this recommendation and shall constitute a waiver of a party’s 

“right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Harrigan v. MetroDade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 8th day of 

October, 2021.

 ______________________________

 LAUREN F. LOUIS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-22496-KMM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2021 Page 5 of 5