873 F. Supp. 2d 939
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- On December 3, 2010, this Court entered judgment in favor of Vanguard and Telefonix and against Se-Kure on patent claims and dismissed the case with prejudice; the judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on November 21, 2011.
- Defendants petitioned for costs totaling $38,693.77 and expert witness fees under Rule 54(d) and 26(b)(4)(E); Plaintiff objected and sought its own expert fees under Rule 26(b)(4)(E).
- The Court awarded Defendants costs and expert fees but reduced the requested costs by $6,220.95 and awarded Plaintiff $14,042.49 in expert fees, to be credited against Defendants’ total costs.
- Defendants are thus awarded a total of $18,430.33 in costs after adjustments and credits.
- The opinion provides a detailed, category-by-category analysis of costs (transcripts, depositions, copying, exemplifications) and expert-witness fees under Rule 26(b)(4)(E).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of amended costs petition | Defendants’ amended petition includes new costs and is untimely. | Amended petition filed within 30 days; allowed revisions within Local Rule 54.1(a). | Amended petition timely; within 30-day rule; merits addressed on the costs. |
| Recoverability of costs under Rule 54(d) and §1920 | Certain costs are not recoverable or reasonable. | All listed costs fall within §1920 recoverable categories and are reasonable. | Prevailing party entitled to recover reasonable and necessary costs; some items reduced. |
| Court transcripts and deposition transcripts | Some transcript costs exceed reasonable rates or lack necessity/proof. | Transcripts were reasonably necessary for litigation and preparation. | Awards for transcript costs adjusted; $266.84 total allowed after reductions. |
| Copying costs | Inadequate documentation; may not be necessary or reasonably attributed to the case. | Document-intensive case; most copying related to depositions; costs reasonable. | Copying costs reduced by 60%; remaining $2,170.68 awarded; portions after last deposition disallowed. |
| Expert witness fees under Rule 26(b)(4)(E) | Plaintiff should recover its own expert fees; Rule 26(b)(4)(E) independent of Rule 54(d). | Defendants may recover their expert fees; timing/allowability contested; require reasonableness. | Both sides may seek Rule 26(b)(4)(E) fees; court awards defendants $13,680.00 and plaintiff $14,042.49 after applying reasonableness and preparation/deposition ratios. |
Key Cases Cited
- Republic Tobacco Co. v. N. Atl. Trading Co., Inc., 481 F.3d 442 (7th Cir. 2007) (statutory authority required for costs under Rule 54(d))
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (construction of costs and prevailing party standards under Rule 54(d))
- Majeske v. City of Chi., 218 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2000) (burden on prevailing party to show costs are reasonable and necessary)
- Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co., 411 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2005) (costs must be reasonable and appropriate to the litigation)
- Northbrook Excess and Surplus Ins., Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 924 F.2d 633 (7th Cir. 1991) (precedent for documenting and awarding photocopying costs; reasonableness standard)
- McIlveen v. Stone Container Corp., 910 F.2d 1581 (7th Cir. 1990) (copying costs recoverable with adequate documentation)
- M.T. Bonk Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., 945 F.2d 1404 (7th Cir. 1991) (district courts may adjust copying costs; preservation of reasonableness)