Therefore, we grant Plaintiff's request to reduce the $16,003.80 requested copy fee to half, or
$8001.90.

Finally, Plaintiffs request a determination as to who the bill of costs will affect. Plaintiffs
argue that all opt-in members of their class stood to reap the benefits of the suit and should therefore
also be responsible for the costs assessed against Plaintiffs. The Seventh Circuit tells us that to
relieve all members of a class, who have affirmatively “opted-in,” of an obligation to pay attorney’s
fees would put an unfair risk on the named plaintiffs. White v. Sundstrand Corp., 256 F.3d 580, 586
(7th Cir.) (stating that to require the named plaintiffs to carry all the risk but not all of the benefits
is an unfair burden and that making the named plaintiffs bear the costs of litigation will lead to the
demise of class actions.) We cannot force the fees onto a prevailing defendant or plaintiff’ s attorney,
nor can we hold class members that did not initiate the suit and incur the costs as liable. fd That
is not the case here. There was a formal opt-in process and those individuals who have affirmatively
decided to enter the class have been afforded the due process in order to make an informed decision
whether to join or opt-out of the class. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S, 797, 812 (1985).
All Plaintiffs who opted-in supported the cause and were willing to benefit from a victory and must
now bear, as a group, the costs assessed against them. Therefore, we believe the judgement for
Defendant’s fees and costs are entered against the named Plaintiffs’ Martinez and Yi, as well as the

entire opt-in class members.

?We believe that we also have the discretion to strike the discovery document copy cost in
itsentirety, Pruitt v. City of Chicage, 2005 WL 2483355, No. 03 C 2877, *2 (7th Cir, 2005)(stating
that where the prevailing party does not offer an explanation as to why copies of non court
documents were necessary, the costs should be stricken from the bill.). However, we believe
Plaintiff has fairly concluded that meeting between the two is more appropriate.

5



$3.30) for Martinez; $386.10 (117 x $3.30) for Yi; $64.74 (78 x $.83) for Blaski; $146.91 (177 x
$,83) for Giarizzo’; $68.89 (83 x $.83) for Gibbs; $185.09 (223 x $.83) for Oyer; $126.99 (153 x
§.83) for Pederson; and $123.67 (149 x $.83) for Schwartz.

Third, Defendant seeks $16,003.80 for copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the
case. Plaintiff argues that the copies were not necessary and were only for the convenience of the
attorneys. Defendant may recover costs for two copies of briefings or documents filed with the court
and one copy for opposing counsel. See Rogers v. City af Chicago, No. 02-C2227, 2002 WL
423723, at *5 (N.D. Ili. March 15,2002). However, if the copies are not for court documents, the
fee is not always taxable. They are only allowable under Section 1920(4), if it is established that the
copy was reasonably necessary to the litigation. U.S.C. § 1920(4) (stating “[flees for exemplification
and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case” are taxable}. Thus, the copies for the
discovery documents will only be awarded if Defendant shows us that the copies were reasonable
and necessary,

Here, Defendant indicates that the copies were not for briefings or court documents, but,
rather, were for copies of document requests and responsive pleadings. Defendant has not provided
the Court a detailed receipt to show that the copies were for court documents, nor has it offered any
explanation as to the necessity and reasonableness of the copies. As support for the fee, Defendant

only provides letters that were sent between counsels, requesting certain discovery documents.

'Defendant did not indicate the number of pages in this deposition, but Plaintiffs say that they
reviewed the deposition and supplied the correct number of pages. Although we believe that we
have the discretion to deny a request for costs where the prevailing party fails to provide information
necessary to determining whether the request is reasonable, we have decided to allow Plaintiff's
tabulation of the number of pages to stand, See Shah v. Vill. of Hoffman Estates, No. 00-C4404,
2003 WL 21961362, at *1 (N.D. II. 2003) (“Where a party seeking costs fails to specifically identify
the number of pages in a requested transcript, no costs will be awarded.”).

4



Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, the Court awards Defendant $150 for fees of the clerk, $2218.49
for transcript and court reporter fees, $698.23 for witness fees, $8,001.90 in copy fees, and $200.00

in other costs, for a total of $ 11,268.62.

ENTER:

4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

parep: AUG 42006



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

EASTERN DIVISION

)
DONG YI and EDGAR MARTINEZ, )
Individually and on behalf of all other )
similarly situated, )
)

Plaintiffs ) No. 04 C 3138
)

¥. } Paul E, Plunkett, Senior Judge

)
STERLING COLLISION CENTERS, }
INC,, )
)
Defendant. )
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND GRDER

On May 17, 2006, we granted Sterling Collision Centers’ (“Defendant”) motion for summary
judgement against Edgar Martinez and Dong Yi, et al (“Plaintiffs”). Defendant filed a timely bill
of costs on June 14, 2006. Before us now is Plaintiffs’ opposition to the amount that Defendant
seeks to recoup. Plaintiffs contend Defendant may not recover court reporter appearance fees, that
the copy fees exceeded the authorized copy rate, that Defendant requested extra copies of discovery
documents out of convenience, rendering them non taxable. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's
opposition to Defendant’s bill of costs is granted. and Defendant may recover statutory costs in the

total amount of $11,268.62 against Martinez, Yi and all participating class members.



Discussion
In civil rights cases, “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than
the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 1988. There is no
dispute that Defendant prevailed in this suit. Our task then is to determine what “a reasonable
attorney’s fee” is in this case. “The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a
reasonable fee,” the Supreme Court tells us, “is the number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S, 424, 433 (1983).
“The party secking the fee award bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of the hours worked
and the hourly rates claimed.” Spegon v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 175 F.3d 544, $50 (7" Cir.
1999). Defendant seeks to recover $4,748.00 for court reporter fees for transcripts, $150.00 for fees
of the clerk, $698.23 for witness fees, $16,003.80 for exemplification and copies of papers and
$200.00 for other costs totaling $21,800.03. Plaintiff contends that the court reporter appearance
fees are not recoverable, the transcript fees exceed the judicially established rate, the extra copies
were not necessary and that all class members that opted into the lawsuit should be jointly
responsible for the fees.
The costs recoverable under Rule 54(d) are circumscribed by statute and include:
(:) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript
necessarily obtained for use in the case;
G3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers 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.



We may award costs under Rule 54(d) if there is statutory authority for them and they are reasonable
and were necessary to the litigation. The costs Defendant seeks to recover for the court reporter,
transcripts and photocopies of court documents are authorized by the statute and were necessary to
the litigation. The only question is whether they are reasonable.

First as to the court reporter fees, although court reporter transcript costs are taxable, court
reporter appearance fees are not. Engate v. Esquire Deposition SVCS, LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
25927, 01 C 6204, *9 (N.D. Ill. 2006). Defendant has asked for reimbursement for reporter fees for
only three of its nine depositions. Because that fee is nat recoverable, the reimbursement for court
reporter fees will be reduced by $180 for Matthew C. Bloom, $120 for Edgar Martinez and $120 for
Dong Yi, totally $ 4,748.00.

Second, Plaintiffs challenge Defendant’s request for transcript fees. Local Rule 54.1(b)
mandates that “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 of the transcript
or deposition was filed unless some other rate was previously provided for by order of court.” The
current rate, in effect when the depositions in this case were taken, is $3.30 per page for an original
transcript and $0.83 per page for a transcript copy.

Plaintiffs contend that the transcript fee for Edgar Martinez and Dong Yi and the copies of
six other transcripts exceed the permitted rates, Martinez’s deposition consists of 132 pages and Yi*s
deposition is 117 pages. Also, the number of pages for the other depositions in question is as
follows: Paul Blaski-78 pages; Michael Giarizzo-177 pages; Brian Gibbs-83 pages; Paul Oyer-223
pages; James Pederson-153 pages; and Cary Schwartz-149 pages. In compliance with the judicially

set rate, we have recalculated the transcript costs and will award the following: $435.60 (132 x