272 F.R.D. 436
E.D. Va.2011Background
- Verizon South, Inc. prevailed on summary judgment and seeks $7,564.40 in costs; Plaintiff Amy Francisco opposes arguing improper itemization and non-taxable costs.
- The Bill of Costs includes private process server, deposition transcripts, printing, and other costs; some items lack detailed supporting documentation.
- The court sustains some objections and overrules others, awarding $4,348.70 in costs to Verizon.
- Key contested items include private process server fees, deposition-related costs, expedited transcripts, and printing/copying costs.
- The court allows certain deposition costs (excluding potential duplications) and certain printing costs, and denies private process server and some ESI-related costs.
- The order notes that the stay of execution is governed by Rule 62, and denies Rule 11 sanctions for the response filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private process server fees are taxable costs | Francisco argues private process server fees are non-taxable | Verizon contends such fees are taxable where authorized by statute | Not taxable; $25.00 private process server fee denied |
| Whether deposition costs were reasonably necessary and properly documented | Depositions not reasonably necessary or adequately documented | Depositions reasonably necessary for defense and preparation; duplication denied | Eight deponents’ costs awarded; duplicate charges for Marshen and Albert disallowed; total deposition costs adjusted to $1,854.60 |
| Whether expedited deposition transcripts are taxable | Unclear necessity for expedited transcripts | Expedited transcripts were reasonable to prepare for potential sanctions and motions | Taxable; $786.90 expeditious deposition cost upheld |
| Whether printing/copying and IKON costs are taxable | Printing/copying costs not properly documented; IKON costs unclear | Copying costs allowed as necessary; IKON processing costs denied for lack of clarity | Copy costs limited to $238.80 (one set); IKON costs denied; overall printing/copying costs partially allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cofield v. Crumpler, 179 F.R.D. 510 (E.D. Va. 1998) (court explains what costs are recoverable under § 1920 and burden on prevailing party)
- LaVay Corp. v. Dominion Federal Savings & Loan, 830 F.2d 522 (4th Cir. 1987) (depositions may be taxed if reasonably necessary for preparation)
- Scallet v. Rosenblum, 176 F.R.D. 522 (W.D. Va. 1997) (deposition-related costs may be taxed if reasonably necessary and properly documented)
- Ford v. Zalco Realty, Inc., 708 F. Supp. 2d 558 (E.D. Va. 2010) (private process server fees generally not taxable under § 1920 in this district)
- Principe v. McDonald’s Corp., 95 F.R.D. 34 (E.D. Va. 1982) (transcripts and related costs are taxable when reasonably necessary to defense)
- Board of Directors, Water’s Edge v. Anden Group, 135 F.R.D. 129 (E.D. Va. 1991) (transcripts of pretrial proceedings may be necessary for counsel’s effective performance)
- Fells v. Virginia Department of Transportation, 605 F. Supp. 2d 740 (E.D. Va. 2009) (electronic discovery costs require clear justification under § 1920)