185 F. Supp. 3d 189
D.D.C.2016Background
- David V. Mann (plaintiff) sued WMATA alleging racially motivated wrongful termination; the court granted WMATA summary judgment.
- WMATA filed a Bill of Costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) seeking $4,454.01 for deposition and trial transcript fees; plaintiff opposed and alternatively sought a stay of enforcement pending appeal.
- Central legal question: which transcript fees qualify as "fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case" under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
- Court reviewed whether each transcript was necessarily obtained as of the time it was taken/ordered (not solely whether used at final hearing/trial).
- Court found some transcripts (including plaintiff’s criminal trial and depositions of Randolph Dawson and Shannon Bohrer) were reasonably necessary; transcripts for Ron Pavlik, Jack Leeb, and Jerome Paige were not sufficiently justified and were disallowed.
- Plaintiff’s motion to stay enforcement of the taxed costs pending appeal was denied for failure to show irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of success on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prevailing party should receive costs at all | Mann argued costs should be denied because the victory had limited value, issues were close, and he sued in good faith | WMATA relied on the presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party under Rule 54(d)(1) | Costs presumptively awarded; plaintiff failed to overcome presumption and total denial was rejected |
| Whether transcript fees are taxable under § 1920 (general standard) | Mann contended many transcripts were not used and thus unnecessary | WMATA argued transcripts were reasonably necessary at the time ordered to prepare for depositions, summary judgment, and trial | Court applied the "necessarily obtained" standard as judged at time of ordering; use at trial is not dispositive |
| Whether specific transcripts (criminal trial; Dawson and Bohrer depositions) were necessary | Mann challenged several transcript fees, including his criminal-trial transcript and multiple deposition transcripts | WMATA showed criminal-trial transcript and transcripts of Dawson and Bohrer were necessary for deposition prep, expert analysis, and summary-judgment/trial preparation | Fees for plaintiff’s criminal-trial transcript and Dawson and Bohrer depositions allowed |
| Whether fees for Pavlik, Leeb, and Paige transcripts are taxable | Mann argued none were used and were unnecessary | WMATA provided no explanation of the relevance or necessity of these specific deponents’ transcripts | Court disallowed fees for Pavlik, Leeb, and Paige due to inadequate justification |
| Whether enforcement of taxed costs should be stayed pending appeal | Mann argued financial disparity and potential hardship justify a stay | WMATA opposed; court evaluated standard four-factor stay test from Nken | Stay denied: Mann showed neither irreparable harm nor strong likelihood of success on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166 (2013) (Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption favoring costs but awards remain discretionary)
- Baez v. DOJ, 684 F.2d 999 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (losing party bears some burden to overcome presumption in favor of taxing costs)
- Osseriran v. Int’l Fin. Corp., 68 F. Supp. 3d 152 (D.D.C. 2014) (necessity of transcripts judged at time ordered; ultimate use is not solely determinative)
- Sykes v. Napolitano, 755 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.D.C. 2010) (transcripts are taxable if reasonably necessary to prepare for depositions, motions, pretrial proceedings, or trial)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (four-factor test for stay pending appeal; likelihood of success and irreparable harm are most critical)