Interlogix requests the following costs for deposition transcripts:

Cost
Deponent Date Delivery Pages Per Page Total

Dr. Bruce Eisenstein 05/08/02 | Daily Unknown $5.00 Unknown

Bradford Ferris 05/03/02 | Expedited 167 $4.00 $668.00
John Flannery 06/05/02 | Expedited 215 $4.00 $860.00
Timothy Levestik 04/11/02 | Daily 158 $5.00 $790.00
Daniel McGavock 05/07/02 | Expedited 218 $4.00 $872.50
Marvin Moody, Jr. 05/16/02 | Expedited 164 $4.00 $656.00
V. Thomas Rhyne, III | 05/10/02 | Daily 370 $5.00 $1,850.00
Kenneth Samples 04/24/02 | Expedited 196 $4.00 $784.00
Roger S. Smith 05/07/02 | Expedited 239 $4.00 $956.00
Mark Tone - Day 1 04/10/02 | Daily 182 $5.00 $910.00
Mark Tone - Day 2 05/01/02 ‘| Daily 118 $5.00 $590.00
Mark Tone - Day 3 06/25/02 | Expedited 163 $4.00 $652.00
Colin Willmott 04/09/02 | Daily 228 $5.00 $1,140.00
John Bergmann 04/23/02 | Copy 120 $0.75 $90.00
Robert Brunius 05/15/02 | Copy 120 $0.75 $90.00
Charles Durant 05/24/02 | Copy 101 $0.75 $75.75
Jeffrey Frey Unknown | Expedited Unknown $5.00 Unknown

Charles Kuyk, II 05/15/02 | Copy 102 $0.75 $76.50
Larry S. Nixon Unknown j Expedited Unknown $5.00 Unknown

Duane Paulson 05/04/02 Copy 101 $0.75 $75.75
Nate Scarpelli 05/14/02 | Copy 62 $0.75 $46.50
Scott Schulz 04/30/02 | Copy 149 $0.75 $111.75
Total $11,294.75



97 C 6815, 1999 WL 529569, at *5 (N.D.IIL. July 20, 1999)(“Judges of this court have found $.15
per page reasonable”).
2. Pleadings

Chamberlain argues costs for copying Interlogix’ pleadings should not be allowed because
Interlogix failed to provide sufficient documentation. Although Interlogix “is not required to submit
a bill of costs containing a description so detailed as to make it impossible economically to recover
photocopying costs,” it “is required to provide the best breakdown obtainable from retained records.”
Northbrook Excess and Surplus Ins. Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 924 F.2d 633, 643 (7th Cir.
1991). Interlogix does not provide any documentation to support its estimate of 24,484 % copies.
Nor does it explain how it arrived at this number. “In the absence of a more detailed affidavit or
some other reliable verification that the copying costs were necessary for presenting evidence to this
court,” the court declines to award Interlogix costs for copying its pleadings. See Mortell v. MacNeal
Health Care Servs. Corp., No. 99 C 4531, 2000 WL 804666, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2000).
3. Deposition Exhibits

Chamberlain argues costs for copying deposition exhibits should not be allowed because
Interlogix already possessed these documents. See Cengr, 135 F.3d at 456 (costs of deposition
exhibit copies not allowed where defendant already had copies of exhibits). In Cengr, the Seventh
Circuit disallowed costs for an additional copy of deposition exhibits provided by the court reporter
as part of the deposition transcripts. Jd. In contrast, Interlogix copied documents for use during
depositions that Chamberlain concedes were necessary to presentation of this case to the court.

Interlogix is awarded $731.70 for copying documents for use as deposition exhibits.


Cost
Deponent Pages Per Page Total
Mark Tone - Day 1 182 $3.00 $546.00
Mark Tone - Day 2 118 $3.00 $354.00
Mark Tone - Day 3 163 $3.00 $489.00
Colin Willmott 228 $3.00 $684.00
John Bergmann 120 $0.75 $90.00
Robert Brunius 120 $0.75 $90.00
Charles Durant 101 $0.75 $75.75
Charles Kuyk, III 102 $0.75 $76.50
Duane Paulson 101 $0.75 $75.75
Nate Scarpelli 62 $0.75 $46.50
Scott Schulz 149 $0.75 $111.75
Robert Baker Video Video $385.00
Jeffrey Vincent Video Video $458.50
John Berman - Day 2 Video Video $280.00
Jerry Hausman Video Video $162.00
Total $9,105.75
2. Court Reporter Attendance Fees

Interlogix seeks to recover $2,592.50 ($170.00 (Ferris) + $212.50 (Flannery) + $170.00
(Levstik) + $297.50 (McGavock) + $191.25 (Moody) + $340.00 (Rhyne) + $191.25 (Samples) +
$255.00 (Smith) + $531.25 (Tone) + $233.75 (Willmott)) in court reporter attendance fees.
Interlogix may recover court reporter attendance fees as part of the reasonable and necessary costs
in obtaining a deposition transcript under §1920(2). See Finchum v. Ford Motor Co., 57 F.3d 526,

534 (7th Cir. 1995)(court may award court reporter attendance fees as taxable costs). Contrary to


As Chamberlain points out, Interlogix fails to justify costs for daily and expedited transcripts.
According to Interlogix, daily and expedited transcripts “were warranted by the fact that the
depositions were completed in a short amount of time and discovery closed on the day that summary
judgments were due.” Interlogix’s blanket assertion is insufficient to justify 15 daily and expedited
transcripts, especially when it used only two of these transcripts in support of its motions for
summary judgment. Indeed, three daily transcripts were ordered over one month prior to the
dispositive motion deadline of May 15,2002. Absent any explanation as to why daily and expedited
transcripts were necessary, Interlogix is only entitled to the $3.00 per page rate for original
deposition transcripts. See Alsaras v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc.,99 C 4226, 2001 WL 1117275,

at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 2001). In sum, Interlogix is entitled to the following deposition transcript

costs:’
Cost
Deponent Pages Per Page Total
Bradford Ferris 167 $3.00 $501.00
John Flannery 215 $3.00 $645.00
Timothy Levestik 158 $3.00 $474.00
Daniel McGavock 218 $3.00 $654.00
Marvin Moody, Jr. 164 $4.00 $492.00
V. Thomas Rhyne, Ill 370 $3.00 $1,110.00
Kenneth Samples 196 $3.00 $588.00
Roger S. Smith 239 $3.00 $717.00

Interlogix failed to provide the number of pages for the deposition transcripts of Eisenstein, Frey and Nixon.
Therefore, the court is unable to award costs for these depositions. See Barnett v. City of Chicago, Nos. 92 C
1683 & 92 C 2104, 1999 WL 138813, at *9 (N.D. Ill. March 5, 1999)(citations omitted)(“Courts confronted
with the absence of documentation concerning the number of pages have refused to tax costs for transcripts”).

5


x $0.15) for three copies of filed pleadings; and (3) $731.70 (4,878 pages x $0.15) for deposition
exhibits. Section 1920(4) authorizes the taxing of costs for copies ’necessarily obtained for use in
the case." 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). “Included in the category of costs ‘reasonably necessary for use in
the case! are copies attributable to discovery and the court's copies of pleadings, motions and
memoranda; however, extra copies for the convenience of the attorneys are not necessary and are not
taxed as costs.” Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc., No. 95 C 2723, 1998 WL 102668, at *1 (N.D.IIL.
March 3, 1998). Based on this standard, Interlogix’ copies were necessarily obtained for use in the
case. Nevertheless, Chamberlain objects to costs associated with each document category, including
the copying charge, as excessive.

1. Discovery Documents

Chamberlain first argues costs associated with document production should not be allowed
because the “parties agreed that each side should produce and pay for its own document production
to avoid the cost of preliminary inspection.” Contrary to Chamberlain’s position, the parties’
agreement does not eliminate Chamberlain’s responsibility to pay Interlogix’s costs. Absent the
agreement, Chamberlain would be liable for Interlogix’ costs in obtaining its documents after paying
to obtain Interlogix’ documents. In both cases, Chamberlain is solely responsible for costs
associated with the parties’ document production.

Chamberlain argues that much of the photocopied material was irrelevant. Chamberlain’s
claim lacks merit. Chamberlain assumed the risk that irrelevant material would be included in
document production by not conducting a preliminary inspection of the documents. Therefore,
Interlogix is entitled to recover costs associated with its document production, including

photocopying at the reasonable rate of $0.15 per page. See Eastern Trading Co. v. Refco, Inc., No.


eo

a)

-
Minut» Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name ofawianet juee | Suzanne B. Conlon _| Stn ate foe

CASE NUMBER 01 C 6157 DATE 9/27/02
CASE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. vs. INTERLOGIX, INC.
TITLE

of the motion being presented.]

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(0D) 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 briefdue__

(4) QO Ruling/Hearing on___—ssetfor__—_at

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on__set for_______ at

(6) oOo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor___— at.
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on___—_aat.

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto___at

(9) QO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4¢n) C1 Local Rule 41.1. C1 FRCP41(a)(1) OI FRCP41(a)(2).

in copying costs). ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.

(1) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

co) =x [Other docket entry] Defendant Interlogix, Inc.’s bill of costs is granted in part. Interlogix, Inc. is
awarded $25,650.78 ($11,698.25 in deposition costs, $595.00 in witness attendance costs and $13,357.53

Spgs 18. Oral

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. umber of notices

V_| Notices mailed by judge's staff. SEP 3U 2002

Notified counsel by telephone. docketed
Docketing to mail notices. 4
5
Mail AO 450 form. facketing dputy initials |
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. 4 /
30/62-
courtroom date mailed notice
cB deputy’s pw
initials
Date/time received in . _
central Clerk’s Office’ .! mailing deputy initials



CONCLUSION
The bill of costs is granted in part. Interlogix is awarded $11,698.25 in deposition costs,

$595.00 in witness attendance costs and $13,357.53 in copying costs.

September 27, 2002 : ENTER:

é
Suz: B. Conlon
United States District Judge

10


Chamberlain’s position, Ochana v. Flores, 206 F.Supp.2d 941 (N.D. Ill. 2002) and Antonson v.
United Armored Serv., Inc., No. 00 C 4095, 2002 WL 908424 (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2002) did not hold
otherwise. Therefore, the court awards Interlogix $2,592.50 for court reporter attendance fees.

B. Witness Attendance Costs

Interlogix seeks costs associated with obtaining the attendance of seven deposition witnesses,
including $357.00 in witness fees and $681.00 in subpoena service fees. Chamberlain challenges
only Interlogix’ costs for service of subpoenas. ,

Section 1920(3) authorizes witness fees. Although Chamberlain does not object to
Interlogix’ witness fees, payment to a deponent may not exceed the statutory limit of $40.00 plus
reasonable travel expenses and subsistence charges. 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b), (c). Interlogix fails to
offer any evidence of the witnesses’ travel expenses or subsistence charges. Therefore, recovery for
witness fees is limited to $40.00 per witness or $280.00.

Section 1920(1) authorizes fees for service of subpoenas. Collins v. Gorman, 96 F.3d 1057,
1059 (7th Cir. 1996). As Chamberlain points out, fees cannot exceed amounts charged by the U.S.
Marshal Service. Jd. at 1060. The U.S. Marshal Service charges $45.00 per hour plus $0.365 per
mile. The invoices submitted by Interlogix do not indicate how long service took or where service
was effectuated. Therefore, the court awards only the $45.00 minimum charged by the U.S.
Marshal’s Service for subpoena service ($315.00).

Cc Copying Costs

Interlogix seeks $17,030.11 for copying costs for three categories of documents: (1)

$12,625.83 for documents produced during discovery, including $9,018.45 (60,123 pages x $0.15)

for photocopying and $3,607.38 (60,123 x $0.06) for Bates labeling; (2) $3,672.68 (24,484.50 pages


A Deposition Costs

Interlogix first seeks $17,166.75 for costs incurred in obtaining the depositions of 23
witnesses. In evaluating the bill of costs, the court must determine whether: (1) the expenses are
allowable under § 1920; and (2) the expenses are reasonable and necessary. Deimer v. Cincinnati
Sub-Zero Products, Inc., 58 F.3d 341, 345 (7th Cir. 1995). Where an award of deposition costs is
appropriate, the Judicial Conference has established $5.00 as the rate per page for a daily transcript,
$4.00 for an expedited transcript, $3.00 for an original transcript and $.75 for a transcript copy.
Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Systems, Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 456 (7th Cir. 1998), citing VI Judicial

: Conference of the United States, Guide to Judiciary Policies’ and Procedures, Court Reporters

Manual, ch. 20, pt. 20.3 (1998).
1. Deposition Transcripts and Videotapes

Section 1920(2) authorizes the taxing of costs for deposition transcripts “necessarily obtained
for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). Costs for videotaping a deposition may be awarded in lieu
of costs for a stenographic transcript. Barber v. Ruth, 7 F.3d 636, 645 (7th Cir. 1993). To be
recoverable, the deposition must be reasonably necessary to the case at the time it was taken. Cengr,
135 F.3d at 455. Chamberlain does not challenge Interlogix’s need for the deposition transcripts and
videotapes outlined in its bill of costs. Rather, Chamberlain argues the costs incurred by Interlogix

for daily and expedited transcripts were unnecessary and unreasonable.


DISCUSSION

I. Chamberlain’s Request to Stay Taxation of Costs

In response, Chamberlain requests a stay pending appeal. Chamberlain fails to cite any
authority for its request. Indeed, this court has denied similar requests. See, e.g., International Oil,
Chemical & Atomic Workers, Local 7-517 v. Uno-Ven Co., No. 97 C 2663, 1998 WL 895557, at *1
(N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 1998)(Lindberg, J); Ziemack v. Centel Corp., No. 92 C 3551, 1997 WL 97384,
at *1 (N.D. IIL. Feb. 27, 1997)(Moran, J.); LeMoine v. Combined Communications Corp., No. 95 C
5881, 1996 WL 435115, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 1996)(Conlon, J.). Absent any authority to the
contrary, Chamberlain’s request to stay taxation of costs is denied.
Il. Interlogix’s Bill of Costs

"[C]osts ... shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise
directs[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). However, Rule 54(d) does not give a court “unrestrained discretion
to tax costs to reimburse a winning litigant for every expense he has seen fit to incur. . . [I]tems
proposed by winning parties as costs should always be given careful scrutiny.” Farmer v. Arabian
American Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 235 (1964). Recoverable costs are specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987). Recoverable costs include:
(1) fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) fees for transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (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. 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
In its bill of costs, Interlogix seeks costs incurred for depositions, witness attendance and copying.

Chamberlain objects, claiming Interlogix’s costs are excessive.


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

EASTERN DIVISION
CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., } sbi ED
Plaintiff, ) No. 01 C6157 2002
v. ; Suzanne B. Conlon, Judge
INTERLOGIX, INC., }
Defendant. ;

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. (“Chamberlain”) sued Interlogix, Inc. (“Interlogix”) for patent
infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 ef seg. Specifically, Chamberlain claimed several
Interlogix wireless security systems infringed Patent No. Re. 35,364 (“the 364 patent”) and Patent
No. Re. 36,703 (“the ‘703 patent”). Interlogix counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of non-
infringement, invalidity and unenforceability. The court granted Interlogix’s motion for partial
summary judgment on invalidity of the ‘703 patent. Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Interlogix, Inc.,
2002 WL 1263984 (N.D. Il. June 3, 2002). Thereafter, the court granted Interlogix’s motion for
summary judgment on non-infringement of the ‘364 patent. Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Interlogix,
Inc., 2002 WL 1777280 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2002). Interlogix now seeks its costs pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

yl5