Dokmo’s affidavits conflicted with their deposition testimony, Transcripts were necessary to
respond to these arguments. For the rcasons stated above, Evergreen may also recover the costs of
Accetura’s and Dokmo’s depositions, less messenger delivery ($297.60 and $381.30, respectively).
See Sharp v. United Airlines, 197 ¥.R.D, 361, 362 (N.D.II, 2000) (deposition and transcript costs
for deposition not used in motion for summary judgment were recoverable).

Fvergreen seeks $219.00 in fees and disbursements for printing. To justify this expense,
Evergreen submits a billing sheet. While a party is not required to prepare a bill of costs “so detailed
as to make it impossible economically to recover photocopying costs,” the documentation must
establish that the copies were made for the case and that they were reasonable and necessary to the
litigation. Northbrook Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Co,, 924 F.2d 633, 643 (7th
Cir. 1991). Moreover, a parly cannot recover costs for copies for its own use. See /fall, 2003 WL
21518536 at * 2-3. Considering Evergreen’s billing sheet, it is impossible to tell whether printing
costs were for anything other than Evergreen’s personal use and whether the copies were reasonably
necessary to litigate Haywood’s claim. Accordingly, Evergreen’s request for $219.00 is denied. See
McCollough y. O'Neill, No. 01 C 6510, 2003 WL 737847 (N.D.IL Feb. 28, 2003).

Haywood disputes Evergreen’s request for $353.75 in photocopying costs. In Evergrcen’s
response to Haywood’s objections, it produces a copy of the court’s docket, listing the pages it
produced for the court. See Mortell v. MacNeal Health Care Servs, Corp., No. 99 C 4531, 2000 WL
804666, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2000) (reliable verification that the copies were necessary is
necded). Evergreen may only recover for copies submitted to the court and opposing counsel. See
Alsaras v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., 99 © 4226, 2001 WI. 1117275, at *2 (N.D. ILL. Sept. 19,

2001), citing Mcilveen v. Stone Container Corp. 910 F.2d 1581, 1584 (7th Cir. 1990). Three copics



*2, The $3.10 per page rate charged for the transcript is within the Judicial Conference guidelines.
Accordingly, Evergreen can recover the requested $325.50 for the costs of Dural’s deposition.
Evergreen cannot recover the $6.50 in delivery charges for Dural’s deposition.

Evergreen seeks $409.50 for the deposition of Scott Boomsa, For the reason stated above,
Livergreen cannot recover the $6.50 delivery charge. See fall, 2003 WL 21518536 at *2. Haywood
further contends that the remaining $403.00 Lvergreen requests should be denied because the
dcposition was unnecessary. Evergreen argues that the request is proper because the deposition was
necessary to prepare for Haywood’s cross-motion for summary judgment. ‘Ihe determination of
necessily under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 “must be made in light of the facts known at the time of the
deposition, without regard to intervening development that render the deposition unneeded for
further use.” Mother and Father vy, Cassidy, 338 F.3d 704, 712 (7th Cir. 2003). The standard for
recovery is whether the deposition was ‘reasonably necessary’ to the case, not whether it was used
in a motion or in court.” Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 I'.3d 445, 455 (7th Cir. 1998).
Although this court granted summary judgment for Evergreen, ordering the deposition transcript of
Haywood’s supervisor in anticipation of possible use in its reply brie! and ongoing litigation is
reasonable. See id. at 455 (employers do not have to rely on affidavits from their employees), The

3.10 per page rate is within the limitations specified by the Judicial Conference. Accordingly,
Evergreen is awarded $403.00 for the costs of Boomsma’s deposition.

Similarly, Haywood argues that the deposition transcripts of Guy Accettura and John Dokmo
were unnecessary because they were not ordered until after Evergreen moved for summary judgment.
Lvergreecn responds that they were necessary to respond to Taywood’s cross-motion for summary

judgment. Indeed, in bis opposition to summary judgment, [laywood argued that Accetura’s and


are reasonable based on the court’s filing requirement of an original and one copy of each document
with a courtesy copy to chambers. Evergreen submitted 510 pages of documents to this court.
Evergreen has not produced an external fee bill for these copies. Its other documentation fixes an
internal rate of $0.10 per page.' Accordingly, Evergreen is awarded $153.00 for copying costs.
(1530 pages x $0.10 = $153.00).

Evergreen submits invoices for medical records totaling $262.75. It is clearly allowable to
award costs for obtaining medical records. See Gillman v. Crown Equip. Corp., 1996 WI. 556706,
*5 (N.D.IIL. Scpt. 26, 1996). In this case, Haywood asserted an intentional infliction of emotional
distress claim. These documents were necessary for Evergreen to defend that claim. Ifowever the
Record Copy Services invoices Evergreen submits are too vague to support recovery. The invoices
do not list the number of pages copied, nor do they list the rate. Nor do the invoices breakdown costs
associated with service of each subpoena. Without these figures, it is impossible to determine
whether the costs of the copies were within the range authorized by the Judicial Conference.
Similarly, without knowing the amount Record Copy Services charged for subpoena service, it is
impossible to determine whether that amount exceeds the U.S. Marshal’s charges. See, e.g., Denson
v. Northeast [linois Regional Commuter &.R., Corp., 2003 WL 21506946, *2 (N.D.IIL June 27,
2003). Accordingly, Evergreen’s request for $262.75 — the cost of procuring Haywood’s medical

records — is denied.

'Tvergreen suggests that the rate should be $0.30 per page. However no documentation
has been submitted to support this amount. The docket printouts merely establish that Evergreen
made 1530 copies. Copy rates of between $0.10 and $0.20 are reasonable. See Hall 2003 WI.
2158536 at * 2 (citing Pendleton v. LaSalle Nat. Bank, 2002 WL 1880124 (N.D.M. Aug. 12.
2002)). Evergrcen’s internal billing sheets fix a rate of $0.10 per page.

5



Minuit: Order Tou (06097)

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

of Assigned J) S74 C » Sit Jud; er
vine Magia Jude Suzanne B. Conlon than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 6408 DATE 24/2003
CASE HAYWOOD vs. EVERGREEN MOTOR CARS, INC.
TITLE

[In the follwing box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintifY, and (b) state brictly the nature

MOTION: ofthe motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

ql) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

(3) cq Answer brief to motion due,__-_- Reply to answer brief due.

(4) ia] Ruling/Hearing on _ set for at

(5) o Status hearing|held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on __sset ffor_ at

(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on set for at
(7) a) Trial[set for/re-set for]on ____at

(8) Oo {Bench/JSury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at_

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

OFRCP4(m) OlLocal Rule 41.1 OO FRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a}(2),

(io) {Other docket entry} Evergreen’s bill of costs [63-1] is approved in part. Evergreen is awarded
$1,676.40 in costs. ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.

pypnd® Onden

(ji) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. |
Na notices required, advised in open court ¢. .Document’
No notices required sunt toes Najiiker:
Notices mailed by judge's staff n
ca vine 2yAGD LOPES SEP 2 § 2008
Notified counsel by telephone. vy : date decker
Dooketing to» mail notices -
Saou ,
mas Vay Te (a

Mail AO 450 form.

ycketing depupy initia

[_Cony to judge/magistrate judge. See as wad
“ i2ai2po>
Loud
date muiled notice
courlroom
CR depuly's - Pw

initials —

Vate/time received in

central Clerk's Office naling depvey initials



Evergreen seeks to recover $91.00 for obtaining Haywood’s EEOC file. Uniscribe copied
380 pages at $0.20 per page. ‘This is a reasonable expense. See Riley v. VOP LLC, 258 F. Supp. 2d
841, 845-46 (N.D.IIl. 2003). However, delivery fees are unrecoverable. See Hall, 2003 WL
21518536 at *2. Asa result, ivergreen may recover $76.00.
CONCLUSION
Evergreen’s bill of costs is approved in part. Evergreen is awarded $1407.40 in deposition

costs, $229.00 in copying costs, and $40.00 in witness attendance costs.

September 24, 2003 ENTER:

) Zé
Suzarine B. Conton
United States District Judge



IN ‘THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
YOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TLLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
RENALDO IIAYWOOD, ) -
Plaintiff, } No.02C 6408
Vv. } Suzanne B. Conlon, Judge
EVERGREEN MOTOR CARS, INC., }
Defendant, }

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Renaldo Haywood sued Evergreen Motor Cars., d/b/a BMW of Orland Park, for race
discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 1.S.C. 2000e, e«
seg. and 42 U.S.C, § 1981 and common Jaw intentional infliction of emotional distress. ‘The court
granted Evergrcen’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. Haywood v. Evergreen Motor
Cars., Inc., No. 02 C 6408, 2003 WL 21418248 (N.D.IIL. June 18, 2003). Evergreen now secks its
costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

DISCUSSLON

"|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) docs not give a court “unrestrained discretion
to tax costs to reimburse a winning litigant for cvery expense he has seen fit to incur. . . [[]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. y. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 US. 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)

b

1


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, Evergrcen seeks costs incurred for depositions, service of subpoenas, witness
attendance and copying. Haywood complains that Evergreen’s costs are excessive.

Evergreen seeks $89.00 for costs related to serving Dr. Patricia Simples. Prevailing parties
may recover service costs that do not exceed the U.S. Marshal’s fees, regardless who effects service.
Hall y, Chicago, No. 98 C 4682, 2003 WL 21518536 at *3 (N.D.IIL July 2, 2003). The U.S. Marshal
charges $40 per hour for the first two hours and $20 for every hour thereafter. /d, The prevailing
party is entitled to the minimum charged by the U.S. Marshal, $40. Evergreen was charged $59.00
for serving Dr. Simples, plus $30 for “rush” service. Evergreen did not justify the “rush” premium.
The prevailing party’s service costs may not exceed the U.S. Marshal’s charges. Jd; Collins v.
Gorman, 96 I.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Evergreen is awarded $40 in costs for
serving Dr, Simples.

Section 1920(3) authorizes witness fees, Although Haywood does not object lo Evergrcen’s
$50 witness fee, the payment to a deponent may not excced the statutory limit of $40.00 plus
reasonable travel expenses and subsistence charges, 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b), (c). Evergreen fails to
offer any evidence of the witnesses’ travel expenses or subsistence charges. ‘Therefore, Evergreen’s
recovery lor witness fees is limited to $40.00. See Chamberlain Group, Inc., v. Interlogix, Inc.,No.
O1 C 6157, 2002 WL 31176068, *3 (N.D.II, Sept. 30, 2002),

Evergreen seeks $332.50 for Michelle Dural’s deposition, including messenger delivery
costs. Under the Judicial Conference guidelines, “delivery costs are considered ordinary business

expenses and are not chargeable in relation to oblaining transcripts.” /Ja/l, 2003 WL 21518536 at