Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 445, 107 8,Ct. 2494, 2499, 96 L.Ed.2d 385
(1987). Here, those limitation require that certain of the City’s requested costs be pared.

A review of the City’s itemization of its witness attendance fees reveals that it asks for an
amount in excess of $40.00 for every witness. (City of Chicago's Memorandum in Support of Bill
of Costs, Ex. B). Accordingly, the total excess amount - $127.41 - will be disallowed.

In addition, the City asks for $289.65 for one night’s hotel accommodations for Mary Rose
Loney. This exceeds the maximum per diem rate for Chicago for July 12, 2007, which was $205.
See http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?query Y ear=2007&content
Type=GSA_BASIC&contentld=17943&queryState=Illinois&noc=T. As such, the City’s allowable
costs must be further reduced by the difference, or $84.65.

Copying Costs

Finally, the City asks to recoup $428.45 in photocopying costs, at a rate of $0.15 per page.
Under Section 1920(4), the City is entitled to “[flees for exemplification and copies of papers
necessarily obtained for use in the case.” The plaintiff finds fault with the City making three, or even
two, copies of certain documents, but this is not excessive when papers are both filed with the court
and provided to opposing counsel, as review of the City’s itemization reveals here. Kulumani v. Blue
Cross Blue Shield Ass'n, 224 F.3d 681, 685 (7" Cir. 2000). The plaintiff also complains about the
rate of $0.15 per page, but this is within the accepted rate. Bellino v. Mineta, 2007 WL 2317202,
*3 (N.DIIIL. , 2007)(rate of $.20 per page); Helzing v. Loyola University of Chicago, 2004 WL
2608287, *4 (N.D.IIL. , 2004)( $0,195 per page); Harkins v. Riverboat Servs., Inc., 286 F.Supp.2d
976, 982 (N.D.Il1.2003)(reasonable rate range of $0.10 to $0.20). Accordingly, the City’s copying

costs will be allowed.



769782, *4 (N.D.IL. Dec. 29, 1995), But while they may not be indispensable, one of the most

frequently cited laments in this circuit is that “[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried.
in briefs.” United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7" Cir, 1991). Accurate citation to the record
is not merely appreciated, it is demanded. Roger Whitmore's Auto. Services, Inc. v. Lake County,
Minis, 424 F.3d 659, 664 (7" Cir, 2005)(“It is not the duty of the district court to scour the record
....”); Ehrhart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 969 F.2d 534, *537 n.5 (7" Cir.
1992)(*Once again we observe that compelling the court to take up a burdensome and fruitless
scavenger hunt for arguments is a drain on its time and resources.”); Ammons v. Aramark Uniform
Services, Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 818 (7" Cir. 2004)(“A court should not be expected to review a lengthy
record for facts that a party could have easily identified with . . . a specific page reference.”). As
such, word indices in transcripts provide a resource for both attorneys and the court; a resource that,
while perhaps not indispensable, is nevertheless, “reasonably necessary.” Those costs will be
allowed,
Witness Costs

The City seeks a total of $1,677.48 in witness fees. “Fees and disbursements for. . .
witnesses” are specifically allowable as costs under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1920. Those “fees and
disbursements” are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1821. That provision limits the witness fee authorized
by § 1920 to forty dollars per day. Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9" Cir, 1995).
It also provides that a witness who travels by common carrier be paid “the actual expenses of [that]
travel,” and that a witness whose overnight stay is required be given a “subsistence allowance” not
to exceed the maximum per diem allowance prescribed by the Administrator of General Services.

28 U.S.C. § 1821(c),(d); Majeske, 218 F.3d at 826. The limitations are to be strictly observed.


CONCLUSION

The City of Chicago’s Bill of Costs [#133] is allowed as modified, The City is awarded costs

ENTERED: \\ Kole _
UNITED'STA oT TE JUDGE

in the amount of $9,535.65.

DATE: 10/2/07



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

EASTERN DIVISION
JEROME MAHER, }
Plaintiff, } No. 03 C 3421
ve } Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole
CITY OF CHICAGO, }
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINI DD ORDER

The defendant City of Chicago, which prevailed in this litigation by virtue of a jury verdict
on July 12, 2007, has filed a Bill of Costs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) in the amount of $9,747.71.

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1), “costs other than attomey's fees shall be allowed as of course
to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Those “costs” are delineated in 28 U.S.C,
§ 1920: (1) fees of the clerk and marshal, (2) fees for transcripts, (3) witness fees and expenses, (4)
fees for copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case, (5) docket fees, and (6)
compensation for court-appointed experts and interpreters. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons,
Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987); Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7"
Cir. 1997). “There is a presumption that the prevailing party will recover costs, and the losing party
bears the burden of an affirmative showing that taxed costs are not appropriate.” Beamon v.
Marshall & Isley Trust Co., 411 F.3d 854, 864 (7" Cir.2005). The taxation of costs against the
losing party entails two inquiries: (1) whether the cost is recoverable; and (2) whether the amount
assessed is reasonable, Majeske v. City of Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 824 (7" Cir.2000). A painstaking

judicial inspection of a bill of costs is unnecessary, however, because as Judge Posner has observed,



there is a market constraint on running up excessive expenses, When incurring its expenses, the

eventual prevailing party cannot be assured of victory and cannot assume that it will be reimbursed
when the time comes to submit a bill of costs. Consequently, the uncertainty of litigation acts as a
governor on spending. Anderson v., Griffin, 397 F.3d 515, 522 (7 Cir, 2005)

Here, the City seeks three categories of costs: (1) court reporter fees and costs of transcripts
obtained; (2) expenses related to procuring witnesses for trial; and (3) photocopying. All three types
of costs are allowable under the statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2); (3); (4), and the plaintiff does not argue
otherwise, What the plaintiff does argue, albeit without vigor, is that the amounts sought are
unreasonable; without much vigor, because the plaintiff fails to cite a single case in its Motion
Disputing the Bill of Costs as Stated by the City of Chicago. Because the plaintiff, as losing party,
bears the burden of demonstrating that the challenged costs are inappropriate, this is a self-defeating
tactic. See Plan Trust Funds v. Royal Intern. Drywall and Decorating, Inc., 493 F.3d 782, 789 (7"
Cir. 2007)(undeveloped argument citing no authority may be deemed waived); United States v,
Lanzotti, 205 F.3d 951, 957 (7th Cir.2000) (“We repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and
undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived (even
where those arguments raise constitutional issues).”).!

Court Reporter Fees and Transcript Costs

The City asks for $7,371.30 in deposition and trial transcript costs. Such items are

enumerated as costs allowable when “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. §1920(2);

Republic Tabacco Co. v, North Atlantic Trading Co., Inc., 481 F.3d 442, 447 (7* Cir, 2007). While

' The City was given the opportunity to file a reply brief, with a deadline of September 24, 2007.
(Dkt. # 136). That date passed with not reply brief from the City. As such, the City has waived its right to
file a reply. N.D.IILL.R. 78.3.


the court may not tax the cost of transcripts provided merely for attorneys’ convenience, the inquiry
is not whether the transcript was actually used in court or in a motion. Majeske v. City of Chicago,
218 F.3d 816, 825 (7" Cir. 2000); Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 455 (7" Cir,
1998). Ruth, 7 F.3d 636, 645 (7" Cir.1993). “[T]ranscripts need not be absolutely indispensable in
order to provide the basis of an award of costs; it is enough if they are reasonably necessary.” Barber
y. Ruth, 7 F.3d 636, 645 (7 Cir,1993),

Here, there is no dispute that the transcripts were reasonably necessary, as the City employed
them in its motions for summary judgment, and during trial. There is also no dispute that the City
is requesting rates allowable under Local Rule 54.1 for transcripts, see
http://10.205.15.104/CLERKS_OFFICE/CrtReporter/trnserpt.htm, or that the court reporter
attendance fee of $35.00 it requests is reasonable. Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1002 (7
Cir.1998)(court reporter attendance fee allowable); Buffone v. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., 2006 WL
3196931, *2 (N.D.III. Oct. 31, 2006)($55.00 per hour reasonable); Spears v. Local No. 134, Intern.
Broth. of Elec. Workers, 2006 WL 2349975, *2 (N.D.IIL, Aug. 10, 2006)($42,00 per hour); Eleby v.
Unilever Food Solutions, 2006 WL 1749903, *2 (N.D.IIL June 20, 2006)($40.00 per hour); bur see
Gyrion v, City of Chicago, 454 F.Supp.2d 725, 726 (N.D.IIl. 2006)(court reporter attendance fees
not recoverable). The plaintiffs only complaint with the City’s Bill of Costs as it pertains to
transcripts is that the amount requested includes word indexes, which the plaintiff deems
unnecessary and obtained only for attorney convenience. As already noted, the plaintiff provides no
support for this contention.

At least one court has disallowed the costs of transcript indices in Rule 54(d) awards, calling

word indices “unnecessary ‘extras.”” See Chamberlain Mfg. Corp. v. Maremont Corp., 1995 WL