Eisenhour v. Weber County
1:10-cv-00022
D. UtahJun 2, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Marcia Eisenhour sued Weber County and individual defendants; trials occurred in Mar 2015 and a retrial in Dec 2016. The first trial resulted in a plaintiff verdict; the court granted a new trial and the second trial resulted in a defense verdict for Weber County.
- Weber County submitted a Bill of Costs requesting $8,782.96 for items such as deposition and other transcripts, witness fees, a trial subpoena, and copying fees.
- Weber County supported the bill with a Verified Memorandum of Costs and invoices; Eisenhour objected, arguing among other things that Weber County was not a prevailing party and some costs were unnecessary.
- The court evaluated the request under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, Rule 54(d), and local rule DUCiv R 54-2, requiring itemization, statutory basis, and supporting receipts.
- The court applied the requirement that taxable costs be reasonable and necessary and limited by statute, distinguishing recoverable minor litigation expenses from non-taxable attorney/expert costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weber County is a "prevailing party" entitled to costs | Eisenhour: Rule 54(d) contemplates a single prevailing party; because judgment was entered against one defendant (Storey), Weber County should not recover costs | Weber County: Different defendants faced distinct claims; prevailing on retrial makes them prevailing parties entitled to costs under § 1920 | Court: Weber County was a prevailing party as to its claims and may recover costs; awarding costs is supported by precedent and logic |
| Whether requested costs were "necessarily obtained for use in the case" under § 1920 | Eisenhour: Costs were not necessary, merely convenient | Weber County: Transcripts, subpoenas, witness fees were necessary for preparing and conducting two trials and contested hearings | Court: Exercising broad discretion, found the documented transcripts, witness fees, subpoena, and copying charges were reasonable and necessary (with one small deduction) |
| Properness and sufficiency of documentation for costs under DUCiv R 54-2 | Eisenhour: Challenged necessity, not the existence of invoices | Weber County: Submitted itemized memorandum with invoices and verification meeting local rule requirements | Court: Found Weber County satisfied itemization and receipt requirements of DUCiv R 54-2 |
| Amount to be awarded | Eisenhour: Implicitly argued reduction or denial for unnecessary items | Weber County: Requested full $8,782.96 | Court: Awarded $8,649.96 after disallowing $133 for one deposition transcript (Scott Eisenhour) |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (discusses scope of § 1920 and Rule 54(d) taxing costs)
- In re Williams Sec. Litig.—WCG Subclass, 558 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir.) (prevailing party bears burden to establish reasonable costs)
- Taniguchi v. Kan. Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (limits taxable costs to modest, statutory expenses)
- Allison v. Bank One—Denver, 289 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir.) (district court discretion in deciding whether costs were necessary)