Brenda Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.
781 F.3d 293
6th Cir.2015Background
- Brenda Colosi sued her former employer JLL for wrongful termination; she lost and JLL submitted a bill of costs for $6,369.55, which the clerk allowed. Colosi objected and sought reduction to $253.50.
- The district court denied Colosi’s motion to reduce costs, finding each item reasonable, necessary, and taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Colosi appealed.
- Major contested items: (1) synchronization costs for deposition video and transcript, (2) costs from a cancelled deposition (attendance charge), (3) transcription costs for three witnesses whose testimony was offered at trial, and (4) imaging of Colosi’s personal computer hard drive.
- Court of Appeals reviews de novo whether items fall within § 1920 and reviews district court’s reasonableness findings for abuse of discretion.
- District court found synchronization reasonable, deposition-related transcripts necessary as of the time taken, attendance fee resulted from Colosi’s last-minute cancellation, and hard-drive imaging was a "copying" expense necessarily obtained for use in the case.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court and awarded JLL $6,369.55 in costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recoverability of deposition video-transcript synchronization costs | Synch costs are unnecessary convenience and not taxable | Synchronization was reasonably necessary for trial | Taxable; district court did not abuse discretion (synchronization may be taxed under §1920(2) if reasonably necessary) |
| Costs from cancelled deposition (reporter attendance fee) | Fee was unnecessary because deposition later completed | Fee resulted from Colosi’s last-minute cancellation and is attributable to her actions | Taxable; district court reasonably found fee arose from cancellation and was properly taxed |
| Transcription costs for witnesses who testified at trial (Roe, Abraham, Barnes) | Transcripts unnecessary because witnesses testified and two were JLL employees unlikely to be impeached | Transcripts were reasonably necessary when taken (possibility of impeachment, reliance on affidavit) | Taxable; necessity judged at time of taking, district court did not abuse discretion |
| Cost to image plaintiff’s hard drive | Most electronic discovery/imaging costs not taxable under §1920(4) | Imaging is the making of a copy; image was necessarily obtained for use and invoice excluded non-copying services | Taxable; imaging falls within ordinary meaning of "making copies" and was necessary here, so district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (Sup. Ct.) (§1920 limits taxable costs; courts construe narrowly)
- BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 405 F.3d 415 (6th Cir.) (synchronization and scanning costs can be taxable if reasonably necessary)
- Sales v. Marshall, 873 F.2d 115 (6th Cir.) (necessity of depositions is judged at time taken; use at trial not dispositive)
- Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997 (Sup. Ct.) (interpret statutory text by ordinary meaning before context)
- CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 737 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir.) (hard-drive imaging can be a taxable copying cost when imaging is necessary for production)
- Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir.) (construed §1920(4) narrowly to exclude many electronic discovery processes)
- Country Vintner of N.C., LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc., 718 F.3d 249 (4th Cir.) (adopted Race Tires approach restricting taxable electronic discovery)