UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 4:20-cv-10094-KMM

BIANCA DIGENNARO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MALGRAT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants Michael L. Malgrat, Fred C. Sims, 

Kenneth JW Waite, and the City of Key West’s (collectively, the “City Defendants”) Motion to 

Tax Costs. (“Mot.”) (ECF No. 71). Plaintiff Bianca Digennaro (“Plaintiff”) filed a response. 

(“Resp.”) (ECF No. 75). The City Defendants filed a reply. (“Reply”) (ECF No. 77). The Court 

referred the matter to the Honorable Jacqueline Becerra, United States Magistrate Judge, “to take 

all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to Defendants’ Motion to Tax 

Costs.” (ECF No. 73). A hearing on the City Defendants’ Motion was held before Magistrate 

Judge Becerra on January 28, 2022. (ECF No. 87). On February 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge 

Becerra issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on Defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs, 

recommending that Defendant’s Motion be granted. (ECF No. 88). No objections to the R&R 

were filed and the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe for review.

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 89 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2022 Page 1 of 3
2

City Defendants seek to recover costs in the amount of $5,401.15 for court reporter fees, and for 

printed or electronically recorded transcripts of depositions taken in this case. Mot. at 2–3. 

Plaintiff filed a response in partial opposition to the Motion, arguing that it was not necessary for 

the City Defendants to order certain transcripts because those transcripts were made available to 

the City Defendants when Plaintiff filed her summary judgment response. See generally Resp. In 

reply, the City Defendants argued that the transcripts at issue were not, in fact, made available to 

them because Plaintiff filed the transcripts under seal, and in any event, the City Defendants 

ordered these transcripts on the day the depositions were taken. Reply at 2.

As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Becerra noted that, at the January 28, 2022 

hearing on the City Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew Plaintiff’s objections and 

represented to the Court that Plaintiff no longer objected to the full amount of costs sought by the 

City Defendants. R&R at 3. In addition, Magistrate Judge Becerra found that as the prevailing 

parties, the City Defendants are entitled to an award of taxable costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). Id. at 6. 

Specifically, Magistrate Judge Becerra noted that the City Defendants seek to recover 

$2,211.25 in costs associated with the City Defendants’ depositions of Plaintiff, her minor son, 

and Herschell Major, and $479.60 in costs associated with the City Defendants’ deposition of 

Ashley Henriquez. Id. Magistrate Judge Becerra found that these depositions were necessarily 

obtained for use in this case because the deposition transcripts were later used in support of the 

City Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Id.

Further, Magistrate Judge Becerra noted that the City Defendants seek to recover $2,710.30 

in costs associated with Plaintiff’s depositions of the individual City Defendants. Id. at 7. 

Magistrate Judge Becerra found that these depositions were necessarily obtained for use in this 

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 89 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2022 Page 2 of 3
3

case because at least some of these deposition transcripts were used to support the City Defendants’ 

summary judgment reply brief. Id.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Becerra recommends that the City Defendants’ Motion be 

granted and that they be awarded costs in the amount of $5,401.15. Id. at 8.

This Court agrees.

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions 

of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND 

ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Becerra’s R&R (ECF No. 88) is ADOPTED. Consistent with 

Magistrate Judge Becerra’s R&R, Defendants Michael L. Malgrat, Fred C. Sims, Kenneth JW 

Waite, and the City of Key West’s Motion to Tax Costs (ECF No. 71) is GRANTED. Defendants 

Michael L. Malgrat, Fred C. Sims, Kenneth JW Waite, and the City of Key West are awarded 

$5,401.15 in costs.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Miami, Florida this ____ day of February, 2022. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

8th

Case 4:20-cv-10094-KMM Document 89 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2022 Page 3 of 3