[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-15092

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cv-61508-RLR

JUAN CARLOS SALVADOR, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRICO, LLC, et al.

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 3, 2020)

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-15092 Date Filed: 01/03/2020 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Juan Salvador appeals the district court’s denial in part of deposition costs 

following settlement in Salvador’s underlying Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 

action against his former employer, appellee Brico, LLC (hereinafter, “Brico”). 

Following the $6,142.14 settlement, the district court entered an order denying 

Salvador’s request to be reimbursed for the costs of nine depositions 

(approximately $2,500) and granting all other requested costs without comment

($1,148). Salvador subsequently moved for reconsideration of the district court’s 

order. The district court reconsidered its prior order and granted it in part, 

awarding costs as to one of the witnesses’ deposition, reasoning that it was the only 

deposition taken for the purpose of summary judgment, but denied again the other 

deposition costs. Salvador timely appealed.

On appeal, Salvador contends that the district court abused its discretion in 

determining that certain depositions Salavador conducted were not necessarily 

obtained for use in the case—thus, the court did not tax Brico for the costs of those 

depositions. Upon a review of Salvador’s brief,1 the record, and the district court’s 

orders, we affirm.

1 We note that Brico did not file a brief in this case. See 11th Cir. R. 42-2(f) (“When an 

appellee fails to file a brief by the due date. . . the appeal will be submitted to the court for 

decision without further delay.”). 

Case: 18-15092 Date Filed: 01/03/2020 Page: 2 of 6 
3

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review taxation of deposition costs for abuse of discretion. U.S. 

E.E.O.C. v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 621 (11th Cir. 2000). “The question of 

whether the costs for a deposition are taxable depends on the factual question of 

whether the deposition was wholly or partially ‘necessarily obtained for use in the 

case.’” Id. at 620-21 (citing Newman v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 648 F.2d 330, 337 

(5th Cir. Unit B 1981)).

“An abuse of discretion occurs if the judge fails to apply the proper legal 

standard or to follow proper procedures in making the determination, or bases an 

award [or a denial] upon findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” United States 

v. Shaygan, 652 F.3d 1297, 1310 (11th Cir. 2011)

“[W]here the trial court denies the prevailing party its costs, the court must

give a reason for its denial of costs so that the appellate court may have some basis 

upon which to determine if the trial court acted within its discretionary power.”

Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 354 (11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Gilchrist v. Bolger,

733 F.2d 1551, 1557 (11th Cir. 1984)) (emphasis in original).

II. DISCUSSION 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(d)(1) establishes that “costs—other 

than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party” unless “. . . a court 

Case: 18-15092 Date Filed: 01/03/2020 Page: 3 of 6 
4

order provides otherwise.” Taxation of deposition transcripts costs is authorized 

by 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2).2

However, simply because taxation of deposition transcript costs is 

authorized does not mean that taxation of such costs is automatic. In W&O, this 

court refused to impose a blanket rule that taxation of deposition costs is warranted 

solely because the deponent was on the losing party’s witness list. See W&O, 213 

F.3d at 621. Rather, the choice whether to award taxation of deposition costs is 

left to the district court’s discretion. Id. (“[d]epositions for these witnesses may be 

taxable, in the discretion of the district court.”) (emphasis added).

Salvador argues that the district court committed reversible error by not

taxing the deposition costs of nine witnesses who were listed on Brico’s initial 

disclosure list. Salvador asserts that Brico’s mere inclusion of those witnesses on 

the trial witness list made their depositions “necessary” and thus the costs 

recoverable.

The district court disagreed. After approving the settlement, which, in part,

stated that “[Salvador’s] counsel’s attorney’s fees and costs [will be] determined 

by the [c]ourt,” the district court found that

[Salvador] has not shown that the deposition transcripts were 

necessary [sic] obtained for use in this case. . . . The facts in this case

2 “A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs . . . [f]ees for 

printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1920(2).

Case: 18-15092 Date Filed: 01/03/2020 Page: 4 of 6 
5

were, for the most part, undisputed. The parameters of Plaintiff’s job 

were known to all parties. The parties’ disagreement in this case was 

focused on a legal question—whether Plaintiff was exempt from the 

[FLSA].

In the subsequent order denying Salvador’s motion for reconsideration, the 

court further explained its rationale:

When the Court compares the amount at issue in this case

[approximately $6,000] with the amount of litigation costs generated 

by Plaintiff [approximately $45,000],3 and when the Court considers 

the history of counsel’s litigation conduct, together with the reality 

that this case was, ultimately, decided through the Court’s legal ruling 

on FLSA exemptions, the Court concludes that [those deposition 

costs] were not incurred for the purpose of summary judgment or 

trial—with one exception.

4

 (emphasis added).

Although Salvador has made various arguments quarrelling with the district 

court’s reasoning, he has not presented a compelling claim showing an abuse of 

discretion. Here, in their settlement, the parties agreed that “[Salvador’s] counsel’s 

attorney’s fees and costs [will be] determined by the [c]ourt.” The court, in its 

initial order, provided a clear rationale to deny costs by determining that the nine 

depositions were not “necessarily obtained” because the “facts in this case were, 

3 Salvador’s motion for attorney’s fees (approximately $45,000) is currently pending 

before the district court and is not at issue in this appeal. The district court stayed that matter 

pending the outcome of the appeal. 

4 In looking to see whether any of the nine depositions were incurred for the purpose of 

summary judgment or trial—and finding that, indeed, one of the depositions was taken for the 

purpose of summary judgment, thus taxation was warranted—the district court engaged in 

precisely the analysis and framework espoused by this court in W&O to determine if a deposition 

was “wholly or partially ‘necessarily obtained for use in the case.’” 213 F.3d at 621.

Case: 18-15092 Date Filed: 01/03/2020 Page: 5 of 6 
6

for the most part, undisputed.” The court, in its subsequent order, further reasoned 

that the attorneys’ unprofessionalism, historical litigation conduct, and current 

“vexatious” litigation—combined with the proportionality of costs compared to the 

amount at issue—weighed against awarding the deposition costs and supported the 

finding that “[Salvador’s deposition] costs were not incurred for the purpose of 

summary judgment or trial.” 

The district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous as they are supported 

by the record. Thus, the district court acted properly in exercising its discretion to 

deny taxation of deposition costs when it determined that because the depositions 

were not incurred for use in summary judgment or trial they were not necessarily 

obtained for use in the case. See W&O, 213 F.3d at 621. The court further acted 

properly, as required, by explaining its rationale for denying in part the requested

deposition costs. See Medford, 62 F.3d at 354. Although Salvador disagrees with 

the district court’s factual finding that the depositions in question were not 

necessarily obtained for use in this case, he has failed to show that this factual 

finding was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying, in part, the motion for costs. We affirm.

AFFIRMED

Case: 18-15092 Date Filed: 01/03/2020 Page: 6 of 6