Opinion ID: 726057
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Process Server Fees

Text: 120 A prevailing party will not be entitled to private process server fees if there is no statutory authority for shifting them. Some courts have shifted private process server costs pursuant to § 1920(1). E.g., Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177-78 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam ) (based on § 1920(1) at least in part), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 812, 112 S.Ct. 61, 116 L.Ed.2d 36 (1991); Tang How v. Edward J. Gerrits, Inc., 756 F.Supp. 1540, 1545 (S.D.Fla.1991), aff'd 961 F.2d 174 (11th Cir.1992); Card v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 126 F.R.D. 658, 662 (N.D.Miss.1989), aff'd w/o opinion, 902 F.2d 957 (5th Cir.1990). However, we must follow the Crawford reasoning, and we concur with the Eighth Circuit that the plain language of § 1920 clearly does not authorize the shifting of private process fees. Crues v. KFC Corp., 768 F.2d 230, 234 (8th Cir.1985). See also Zdunek v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 100 F.R.D. 689, 692 (D.D.C.1983); Goldstein v. GNOC, Corp., No. 90-0496, 1994 WL 456360 at  2-3 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 22, 1994). 121 Courts have found other authority for shifting private process server fees. At least one other court within this circuit has allowed the cost when it is reasonable. Big R Food Warehouses v. Local 338 RWDSU, 896 F.Supp. 292, 299-300 (E.D.N.Y.1995) ($55). But reasonableness is the analysis we apply when the fees have been granted; it does not provide any authority for granting the fees in the first instance. Other courts have shifted the fee pursuant to a local rule. See, e.g., Cody v. Private Agencies Collaborating Together, Inc., 911 F.Supp. 1, 6 (D.D.C.1995) (Local Rule 214(d) subpart 11); Coulter v. Newmont Gold Co., 873 F.Supp. 394, 395 (D.Nev.1994) (Local Rule 205-2). However, there is no local rule in the Southern District of New York that is relevant. Finally, some courts have shifted the cost because of the trend toward substitution of private process servers for the U.S. Marshals Service. Riofrio Anda v. Ralston Purina Co., 772 F.Supp. 46, 55 (D.P.R.1991), aff'd, 959 F.2d 1149 (1st Cir.1992); Roberts v. Homelite Div. of Textron, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 637, 640-41 (N.D.Ind.1987). At least one court has specifically read § 1921(a)(1) in conjunction with § 1920(1) and allowed these costs. Griffith v. Mt. Carmel Medical Ctr., 157 F.R.D. 499, 507-08 (D.Kan.1994): 122 Although § 1920(1) refers simply to fees of the marshal, it must be read in light of § 1921 which states that the marshals or deputy marshals shall routinely collect, and a court may tax as costs, fees for ... [s]erving ... process in any case or proceeding [and] [s]erving a subpoena or summons for a witness. ... Given the apparent congressional intent to make service of process a taxable item, [citing Alflex, supra ] and due to the substitution of private process servers for the U.S. Marshal Service in recent years, [citing Roberts, supra ] the court believes the taxation of costs for special process servers is justifiable. However, such costs should be taxable only to the extent that they do not exceed the costs that would have been incurred had the Marshal's office effected service, since only the Marshal's fee amount is actually statutorily authorized. 123 (other citations omitted). We think this provides the most persuasive basis for allowing the award of private process server fees should the district court have chosen to award them. However, this interpretation does not mandate that the court's discretion be exercised in that fashion, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award process server fees for 1991 or 1994.b. Witness Fees 124 There is a general presumption that only the costs of those witnesses who actually testify at trial may be shifted. Moreover, the presumption can be overcome if it appears that a court order or some other extrinsic circumstance rendered his testimony unnecessary. McGuigan v. CAE Link Corp., 155 F.R.D. 31, 35-36 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (quoting 10 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2678 at 377 (2d Ed.1983)). 125 Since the 1991 trial was cancelled for reasons beyond EPC's control (i.e., lack of a jury pool), they should have been awarded witness fees and travel expenses for those who were subpoenaed in 1991 and actually testified in 1994. The amount awarded roughly covered the fees and expenses of the three who were on both lists and the four on the 1994 list. We decline to find that the district court abused its discretion inasmuch as there is no evidence that those others did not testify for some objective reason such as a stipulation as to what they would say, see, id., 155 F.R.D. at 35, 36 (citation omitted), or because the court decided their testimony would be redundant, see Marino v. Town of Kirkland, New York, 146 F.R.D. 49, 51 (N.D.N.Y.1993). 2. Photocopying Costs 126 Evergreen sought $17,690.78 in photocopying costs but was awarded $5,000, and now appeals the district court's award. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) allows the costs of exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case to be shifted. Photocopying costs may be recovered even though the underlying document was not admitted at trial. M.T. Bonk Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., 945 F.2d 1404, 1410 (7th Cir.1991) (photocopying costs which are reasonably incurred). Evergreen did not, however, itemize those costs or explain why all those copies were necessary. Since $5,000 represented the court's estimate of the cost of photocopying the exhibits offered at trial and other papers submitted by plaintiff in connection with [the] trial, Evergreen, 890 F.Supp. at 1228, it appropriately cabined its discretion. The $5,000 award was not an abuse of discretion. 3. Expert Witness Fees 127 The district court was clearly correct in denying expert witness fees. We are at a loss to see how Evergreen could seek them in light of Crawford and West Virginia Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 86-87, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 1140-41, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991). 4. Electronic Computer Research Costs 128 EPC sought $4,608.04 in Westlaw costs, which the district court denied in full. In Standley v. Chilhowee R-IV School Dist., 5 F.3d 319, 325 & n. 7 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Leftwich v. Harris-Stowe State College, 702 F.2d 686, 695 (8th Cir.1983)), the Eighth Circuit held that computer costs are part of the attorneys' fees and not to be taxed separately. See also Haroco, Inc. v. American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 38 F.3d 1429, 1440-41 (7th Cir.1994); cf. Jones v. Unisys Corp., 54 F.3d 624, 633 (10th Cir.1995) (computer research costs not statutorily authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1920). We agree that computer research is merely a substitute for an attorney's time that is compensable under an application for attorneys' fees and is not a separately taxable cost. See, Haroco, 38 F.3d at 1441. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to shift the cost of this item.