Manson v. City of Chicago
825 F. Supp. 2d 952
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Defendants (City of Chicago and officers Culhane, McGhee, Perkovich, Stanek) prevailed at trial; judgment entered August 4, 2011.
- Defendants sought $6,504.02 in costs; Plaintiff Manson objected to several line items and lack of affidavit.
- Court applies Rule 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920, 1924 to tax costs.
- Court discusses necessity and reasonableness of costs; broad discretion to allow costs to prevailing party.
- Court ultimately awards $5,624.91 in costs, detailing categories of copies, service, transcripts, and exhibits.
- Key reductions relate to mischaracterized docket fees, unsupported service-time, and copied transcripts at reduced per-page rates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether §1924 affidavit requirement was satisfied | Manson argues no affidavit for costs. | Defendants provided affidavit with response. | Affidavit requirement satisfied. |
| whether copies of court filings are recoverable as costs | Copies were for attorney convenience. | Copies were necessary for use in case. | Allowed as copies under §1920(4). |
| whether service of summons/subpoenas costs are recoverable when using private process servers | Documentation insufficient; costs not justified. | Private process servers allowed if not exceeding marshal fees. | Awarded $605.00 at marshal-rate minimum; others denied. |
| whether court reporter and transcript fees were reasonable and properly charged | Some transcripts unnecessary or overcharged. | Fees within Judicial Conference rates; some adjustments. | Most deposition costs allowed; some per-page rate reductions and specific transcripts disallowed. |
| whether exhibit delivery charges are recoverable | Delivery fee should be overhead not recoverable. | Delivery charges incidental to depositions are recoverable. | Delivery fee for exhibit awarded as reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 1997) (costs recoverable; strong presumption in favor of costs but detailed scrutiny required)
- Barber v. Ruth, 7 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 1993) (costs must be reasonable and necessary; scrutiny of bill of costs)
- Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 1998) (deposition attendance fees may be taxed as costs; reasonableness)
- Finchum v. Ford Motor Co., 57 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 1995) (deposition-related charges; travel/attendance considerations)