Little v. Rummel, 1:12-cv-00113

Plaintiff Parke W. Little sued several city and county officials (Rummel, Stenberg, Kolling, Tuhy) plus the City of Dickinson and County of Stark; the court resolved the merits in favor of the defendants and entered judgment for defendants.
Defendants filed two motions for taxable costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1): one by County Defendants (Tuhy and Stark County) and one by City Defendants (Rummel, Stenberg, Kolling and City of Dickinson).
Requests were limited to costs ordinarily taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Defendants sought items including deposition-related attorney mileage which the court viewed as noncompensable under § 1920.
Little opposed awarding costs, arguing the defendants were better able to bear costs, that the issues were close, and that he proceeded in good faith. He is not indigent by his own admission.
The court recognized the presumption that a prevailing party is entitled to costs but noted discretion to deny costs only for good reason and must state reasons on the record.
The court awarded partial costs: $670.90 jointly to Tuhy and Stark County, and $1,087.60 jointly to the City Defendants; clerk instructed to amend judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prevailing defendants are entitled to taxable costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)	Little: defendants should bear costs; case was close; he acted in good faith	Defendants: prevailing party presumptively entitled to recover taxable costs under Rule 54(d) and § 1920	Court: awarded taxable costs to defendants, applying presumption and finding no good reason to deny costs
Whether costs claimed fit within 28 U.S.C. § 1920	Little: implicit challenge that some costs were improper	Defendants: limited request to ordinarily taxable costs under § 1920	Court: disallowed attorney mileage to attend depositions as not recoverable under § 1920; otherwise awarded allowable costs
Whether plaintiff's financial status warrants denial of costs	Little: argued defendants better able to bear costs; claimed hardship implicitly	Defendants: noted plaintiff is not indigent	Court: plaintiff admitted he is not indigent; that weighed against denying costs
Whether closeness of issues justifies denying costs	Little: asserted issues were close	Defendants: prevailed; case lacked strength	Court: considered closeness but found plaintiff's case not strong enough to overcome presumption in favor of awarding costs

In re Derailment Cases, 417 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 2005) (prevailing party presumptively entitled to costs)
Thompson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 472 F.3d 515 (8th Cir. 2006) (court must articulate reasons when denying costs)
Bathke v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc., 64 F.3d 340 (8th Cir. 1995) (district court has substantial discretion on awarding costs)
Little Rock Cardiology Clinic PA v. Baptist Health, 591 F.3d 591 (8th Cir. 2009) (taxable costs must fit within § 1920)