defendants’ award by a total of $127.50 for the deposition transcripts of the aforementioned
witnesses.

2. Condensed transcripts and ASCII Disks

Second, in addition to the regular transcripts, defendants also seek $18.75 for a condensed
transcript of the Ochana deposition, $25.00 for a condensed transcript of the combined Flores
and Schwocher deposition, and $20.00 for ASCII disks of the combined Flores and Schwocher
deposition. The Judicial Conference rate of $3.00 per page for original deposition transcripts
covers all costs of transcript production. COURT REPORTERS MANUAL, ch. 20, pt. 20.8. Costs
for condensed transcripts are not recoverable. Winery v. City of Chicago, No. 96 C 1208, 2000
WL 1222152, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2000). Also, defendants are not entitled to recover
charges for ASCII diskettes of deposition transcripts, which are merely for the attorney’s
convenience and not necessary to litigating the case. Antonson v. United Armored Servs., Inc.,
No. 00 C 4095, 2002 WL 908424 (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2002) (citing Weeks v. Samsung Heavy
Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 946 (7th Cir. 1997)); Rogers v. City of Chicago, No. 00 C 2227, 2002
WL 423723, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2002); Jones v. Bd. of Trs. of Comty. Coll. Dist. No. 508,
197 F.R.D. 363, 364-65 (N.D. Ill. 2000). Accordingly, defendants’ request to tax the costs of
the condensed transcripts and ASCII disks is denied. Thus, the court eliminates from
defendants’ costs the total additional costs of $63.75 related to the condensed deposition
transcripts ($43.75) and ASCII disks ($20).

3. Expedited transcript

Third, defendants seek $80.00 in costs for a daily transcript of the October 31,2001 court

proceeding at $5.00 per page. At the October 31, 2001 court hearing, the court ruled on

4


expert, John Bowman. Second, plaintiff objects to defendants’ charge for two copies of another
411-page letter with attachments sent to plaintiffs counsel. Defendants’ bill of costs fails to
detail the content of these lengthy attachments or why two copies of each letter and attachments
were necessary. Defendants are not required to submit a bill of costs “‘containing a description
so detailed as to make it impossible economically to recover photocopying costs.’”” Mortenson
v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins, Co., No. 99 C 2419, 2000 WL 347766, at *1 (N.D. Ill. April 3, 2000)
(quoting Northbrook Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 924 F.2d 633, 643
(7th Cir. 1991)). However, the court cannot award defendants photocopying costs without some
confidence that the costs are properly recoverable. Also, it is logical to assume, without further
explanation from defendants, that these copies were made for the convenience of the defendants.
Therefore, in the absence of a more reliable verification that the copying costs were necessary,
the court will allow copy charges for only one copy of each letter and attachments and will
reduce the number of pages copied by 820 pages, as requested by the plaintiff. Thus, the court
reduces defendants’ award for photocopying to $298.40 (2,984 pages at $0.10 per page).
D. Other costs for medical records and photographs

Defendants seek costs for copying plaintiffs medical records. The bill of costs contains
three charges for Record Copy Services for Children’s Memorial Hospital in the amounts of
$90.50, $36.00, and $19.75. It also contains two charges for Record Copy Services at
Northwestern Memorial Hospital in the amounts of $36.00 and $19.75. Defendants’ bill of costs
does not detail what medical records were copied or whether multiple copies were made of the
same records. In the absence of reliable verification that the copying costs were necessary and

not duplicative, the court will allow only the highest single charge from each hospital and award

7


subpoena fees, but objected to several other portions of defendants’ bill of costs. The court will
review each of the disputed costs in turn.

B. Deposition and transcript costs

Plaintiff objects to the amount charged for deposition transcripts, condensed transcripts
and ASCII disks, and an expedited transcript. The court will address each objection in turn.

1. Deposition transcript charges

First, according to Local Rule 54.1(b), “the costs of the transcript or deposition shall not
exceed the regular copy rate as established by the Judicial Conference of the United States and
in effect at the time the transcript or deposition was filed unless some other rate was previously
provided for by order of court.” Loc. R. 54.1(b). The Judicial Conference Rate allowed for
original deposition transcripts is $3.00 per page. VI JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED
STATES GUIDE TO JUDICIARY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, COURT REPORTERS MANUAL, ch. 20,
pt. 20.3 (1998) (“COURT REPORTERS MANUAL”). This fee covers all costs of transcript
production, Jd. at pt. 20.8. See also Cengr v, Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 456 (7th
Cir. 1998) (summarizing the judicial conference rates applicable to various types of transcripts).

Defendants seek deposition costs of $3.25 per page for the depositions of Ochana, Flores,
Schwocher and Oggerino, and they seek $4.00 per page for the Murphy deposition. Because the
maximum charge per page for a deposition transcript is $3.00, these costs must be reduced using
the judicial conference rates. The court reduces defendants’ award by the following amounts:
(a) $31.25 for the 125-page original transcript of Ochana; (b) $31.00 for the 124-page combined
original transcript of Flores and Schwocher; (c) $35.25 for the 141-page original transcript of

Oggerino; and (d) $30.00 for the 30-page original transcript of Murphy. Thus, the court reduces

3


Plaintiffs Motion for Return of Evidence and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint Instanter. Plaintiff argues that this transcript was not necessarily incurred
and that the only record needed of the ruling was the court’s order. However, defendants explain
that the transcript of the hearing was reasonably necessary to effect the release of plaintiff's
property and have a record of the court’s ruling.

The court finds that defendants’ explanation sufficiently demonstrates that the transcript
of the hearing was reasonably necessary. However, the additional cost of expediting the
transcript is not recoverable because defendants provide no explanation for needing to expedite
the transcript. See Winery, 2000 WL 1222152, at *2 (stating that the party seeking
reimbursement must show that the expedited transcripts were reasonable and necessary).
Accordingly, defendants are entitled to recover $3.00 per page for an ordinary transcript rather
than $5.00 per page for a daily transcript. Thus, the court reduces defendants’ award a total of
$32.00 for the original 16-page transcript of the October 31, 2001 court proceeding.

In sum, the court reduces defendants’ deposition and transcript charges by $223.25
($127.50 for deposition transcripts + $63.75 for condensed transcripts and ASCII disks + $32.00
for unnecessary expediting fees). Thus, the court awards defendants $1,558.00 in deposition and
transcript costs.

Cc. Photocopying fees

Defendants seek reimbursement for 3,804 pages of photocopied materials. As a
preliminary matter, plaintiff objects to defendants’ charge of $0.20 per page for in-house copying
costs. The court agrees that $0.20 is too high for in-house charges. Charges for in-house

reproduction may not exceed the charges of an outside print shop. Antonson, 2002 WL 908424

5


defendants a total of $126.50 for copies of medical records ($90.50 for Children Memorial
Hospital records and $36.00 for Northwestern Memorial Hospital records).

Defendants also seek costs for laser color prints for $19.75 and reproduction of
photographs taken of property recovered from plaintiff for $27.25. Defendants explain that these
photographs and reproductions were necessary to preserve evidence of the condition of the
property at the time it was returned to plaintiff so they could lay a proper foundation at trial.
Defendants also explain that the photographs were necessary to show the appearance of the
property because plaintiff was charged with possession of a controlled substance and plaintiff
disputed that the substance looked like any controlled substance. The court agrees with
defendants that these charges are proper as costs. Therefore, the defendants are entitled to
$47.00 for these photographs and reproductions.

In sum, the court awards defendants $173.50 for other costs related to medical records
($126.50) and photographs ($47.00).

Il. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part defendants’ motion
for entry of an order on their bill of costs. Defendants are awarded the following costs: (1)
$1,558.00 for deposition and transcript costs; (2) $298.40 for photocopying fees; (3) $43.00 in
witness and subpoena fees; and (4) $173.50 for other costs relating to medical records

photographs. Defendants are awarded total costs of $2,072.90.

JUN 18 2002 — ellen,

Date James H. Alesia
United States District Judge



Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

James H. Alesia

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 00 C 7869 DATE June 18, 2002
CASE John Ochana vs. Fernando Flores and Anthony Schwocher
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
@ oa Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) ao Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(7) i Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Q This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) (General Rule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).
do) i [Other docket entry) | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. The court grants in part and
denies in part defendants’ motion for an entry of order on their bill of costs [63-1]. The clerk is
directed to tax costs in the amount of $2,072.90. -
(11) a [For further detail see order attached to the original mimute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. umber of notices
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. .
Notified counsel by telephone, JUN 29 200e
wv | Docketing to mail notices.

(4

Mail AO 450 form, jocketing deputy initials

09 LoLsia "S'A
aun yea

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
deputy’s
initials

92:4 Hd BI NNT 20
cen ale

cw

analing deputy initials



(citing Martin v. United States, 931 F.2d 453, 455 (7th Cir. 1991)). Local print shops charge
$0.09 and $0.10 per page for standard photocopying. See, e.g., Antonson, 2002 WL 908424
(finding that $0.10 per page is a reasonable charge for in-house copying). Per page charges
exceeding those of outside print shops for standard copying are allowed only when a party
presents the court with an explanation as to why such charges are appropriate. Rogers, 2002 WL
423723, at *4 (citing Manley v. City of Chicago, 236 F.3d 392, 398 (7th Cir. 2001)). Defendants
provide no factual basis to support why a $0.20 per page charge is reasonable or appropriate.
Therefore, the court reduces defendants’ in-house copying costs to $0.10 per page. See Rogers,
2002 WL 423723, at *4 (reducing in-house copying costs from $0.20 to $0.10 per page).

Defendants are entitled to recover the costs for making necessary copies of necessary
documents. Rogers, 2002 WL 423723, at *4. Copying documents for production in discovery
is necessary and recoverable. Antonson, 2002 WL 908424. For documents filed with the court,
only copies for the court and one copy for opposing counsel are necessary. /d. The cost of
additional copies made for the convenience of counsel is not recoverable. Antonson, 2002 WL
908424 (citing Haroco, Inc. v. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 38 F.3d 1429, 1441 (7th Cir. 1994)).
Copying costs for original documents are not taxable. Jd. The burden is on the party seeking
reimbursement for photocopying costs to show that the photocopied items were necessary; if that
party fails to meet the burden, the court should not award costs for those items. Chemetall
GmbH y, ZR Energy, Inc., No. 99 C 4334, 2001 WL 1104604, at *33 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2001)
(citing cases).

Plaintiff objects to the copy charges for two sets of attachments. First, plaintiff objects

to defendants’ charge for two copies of a 411-page letter with attachments sent to defendants’

6


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ral

EASTERN DIVISION get 60
v
yon 3
JOHN OCHANA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) ae He
) ane
v. ) Case No. 00 C 7869
)
FERNANDO FLORES and ) Judge James H. Alesia
ANTHONY SCHWOCHER, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On April 11, 2002, this court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
entered final judgment in favor of defendants Fernando Flores and Anthony Schwocher and
against plaintiff John Ochana. Ochana v. Flores, No. 00 C 7869, 2002 WL 553150 (N.D. Ill.
Apr. 11, 2002). Currently before the court is defendants’ motion for entry of an order on their
bill of costs. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants in part and denies in part
defendants’ motion.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Background

Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the general rule that costs
other than attorneys’ fees “shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party,” except as
otherwise provided by statute or in the rules. Payne v. Milwaukee County, 288 F.3d 1021, 1027
(7th Cir. 2002) (quoting FED. R. Civ. P. 54(d)). The proper measure of those costs is set forth

in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (“§ 1920”). Tidemann v. Nadler Golf Car Sales, Inc., 224 F.3d 719, 726

(7


(7th Cir. 2000). The costs explicitly allowed by § 1920 are: (1) fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) fees for court reporters and transcripts; (3) fees for printing and witnesses; (4) fees for copies
of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) docket fees; and (6) compensation of court-
appointed experts and interpreters. § 1920. There is a heavy presumption in favor of awarding
costs to the prevailing party. Majeske v. City of Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 824 (7th Cir. 2000).
Taxing costs against a losing party requires two inquiries: (1) whether the cost imposed on the
losing party is recoverable, and (2) if so, whether the amount assessed for that item was
reasonable. Jd.

As an initial matter, the court disagrees with plaintiff's argument that no costs should be
awarded because all costs sought were paid by the City of Chicago, a non-party in this case.
Plaintiff is correct that the City of Chicago itself is a non-party in this case and, therefore, cannot
be a prevailing party. However, as demonstrated by receipts attached to the bill of costs, the
costs were paid by the Assistant Corporation Counsel Individual Defense Litigation which
represented Officers Flores and Schwocher throughout these proceedings. As the prevailing
parties, these defendants are entitled to costs through their attorneys, the Assistant Corporation
Counsel. Therefore, the bill of costs was properly filed by the prevailing party.

Defendants seek recovery for the following in their bill of costs: (1) $1,781.25 for
deposition and transcript costs; (2) $760.80 for photocopying fees; (3) $43.00 in witness and
subpoena fees; and (4) $249.00 for other costs relating to medical records and photographs.
Because al] these costs are recoverable under § 1920, the court’s only inquiry is whether the

amount assessed for each item was reasonable. Plaintiff has no objection to the witness and