Opinion ID: 2982840
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bosch’s other costs

Text: Banks argues that the district court committed reversible error by failing to determine that each and every item on Bosch’s bill of costs was “reasonable and necessary.” The final bill of costs is comprised of the following three line items:  Fees of the clerk [for removal to federal court] 350.00  Fees for deposition transcripts necessarily obtained 4,827.60 for use in the case -3- No. 14-6115 Banks v. Bosch Rexroth Corp.  Fees for the cost of making copies of materials 401.54 necessarily obtained for use in the case Total Costs Taxed $5,579.14 R. 77, PageID 1485. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1), a judge or clerk may tax “[f]ees of the clerk and marshal,” including removal fees. Jefferson v. Jefferson Cnty. Pub. Sch. Sys., 360 F.3d 583, 591 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920). And as discussed above, “the costs of taking and transcribing depositions reasonably necessary for the litigation are allowed to the prevailing party.” Sales, 873 F.2d at 120. Finally, § 1920(4) permits “Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Banks’s motion for review of the clerk’s taxing of costs specifically targeted only the cost of the second deposition—no other particular cost was challenged. On appeal Banks reiterated her challenge to the cost of the second deposition, and also argued that she should not be accountable for the removal fee here because she filed in state court, and Bosch itself created that cost by opting to remove. Our caselaw clearly permits the taxation of costs against a losing party for the cost of removal, Jefferson, 360 F.3d at 591, and a deposition that is reasonably necessary for the litigation, Sales, 873 F.2d at 120. Because all of Bosch’s other taxed costs also fall into permissible categories, and Banks has offered no evidence or argument that any of them in particular was improper, the district court did not abuse its discretion by assessing them against Banks. -4- No. 14-6115 Banks v. Bosch Rexroth Corp.