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.

Rose v. Franciscan Alliance Inc.

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

February 19, 2019

MARY ROSE, Plaintiff,
v.
FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE INC., Defendant.

          ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S BILL OF COSTS

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Franciscan Alliance Inc.'s (“Franciscan”) Bill of Costs (Filing No. 59). Plaintiff Mary Rose (“Rose”) brought this action against Franciscan, alleging employment discrimination based on disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Franciscan moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted on June 4, 2018 (Filing No. 57). That same day, final judgment was entered in favor of Franciscan and against Rose (Filing No. 58). As the prevailing party, Franciscan requested an award of its costs incurred in defending this action in the amount of $10, 876.47 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Rose objects to a portion of the costs sought. For the reasons explained below, an adjusted amount of $5, 392.71 in costs is awarded.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         Rule 54(d) creates “a strong presumption that the prevailing party will recover costs, with the ultimate decision resting within the district court's discretion.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997). “The presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party is difficult to overcome, and the district court's discretion is narrowly confined--the court must award costs unless it states good reasons for denying them.” Id. Absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion, a district court's award of costs will not be overturned “[a]s long as there is statutory authority for allowing a particular item to be taxed as a cost.” Id.

         “Statutory authority exists for the award of costs in this case.” Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., 135 F.3d 445, 454 (7th Cir. 1998). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, a federal court may tax as costs:

(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.

28 U.S.C. § 1920.

         II. DISCUSSION

         The costs in the amount of $10, 876.47 requested by Franciscan consist of: $28.30 for copying charges and fees relating to discovery and defense; $894.75 for expenses associated with the deposition of Rose; $5, 613.02 for electronic discovery service and storage costs related to the electronic discovery sought by Rose; $428.00 for expenses associated with depositions of Franciscan's representatives; $1, 000.00 for the fee associated with the deposition of Dr. Kenneth Young; $61.52 for the fee associated with the deposition of Regina Wessic; $901.31 for the services of Stewart Richardson for expenses associated with the depositions of Dr. Kenneth Young, Robin Maluck, and Regina Wessic; $96.25 for charges and fees relating to the request and production of Rose's health records; $1, 832.62 for Westlaw charges and fees relating to legal ...


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.