Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lamothe v. Federal Express Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

January 9, 2019

YVES L. LAMOTHE, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant.

          ORDER

          HON. JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is a Bill of Costs, [Filing No. 69], filed by Defendant Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”), to which Plaintiff Yves Lamothe objects, [Filing No. 70]. FedEx requests costs in the amount of $2, 756.42, and Mr. Lamothe objects to FedEx's request for $975.00 in videography and video service costs. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part FedEx's request.

         I. Legal Standard

         The costs that are recoverable by a prevailing party in a civil lawsuit are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1920:

A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree.

28 U.S.C. § 1920.

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the Court has discretion to tax the costs enumerated in § 1920 against the losing party in an action. Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). Moreover, “Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party.” Baker v. Lindgren, 856 F.3d 498, 502 (7th Cir. 2017). “The process for awarding court costs is intended to be summary.” ExtraEquipamentos E Exportacao Ltda. v. Case Corp., 541 F.3d 719, 727 (7th Cir. 2008). The district court should not resolve arguments regarding the winning party's strategy in litigating the case, id., but nonetheless must ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.