Adrian Clark v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

ADRIAN CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:24-cv-15-WFJ-PRL

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.,

Defendant. _________________________________/

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Publix Super Markets, Inc.’s (“Publix”) Second Renewed Motion to Tax Costs. Dkt. 61. This motion was unopposed, as Plaintiff Adrian Clark (“Clark”) did not file a response. See Local Rules 3.01(d). United States Magistrate Judge Lammens issued a report recommending the motion be granted in part and denied in part. Dkt. 63. No objections have been filed to the report, and the time for filing objections has passed. Upon careful consideration, the Court agrees with Judge Lammens’ thorough and well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions and adopts the report and recommendation. The Court reviews the legal conclusions of the magistrate judge de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). After an independent review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(3); Macort v. Prem., Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783–84 (11th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff Clark brought this action against Defendant Publix, alleging intentional racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Dkt. 1. The Court granted

Defendant Publix’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in Defendant Publix’s favor. Dkts. 36, 38. Upon Plaintiff Clark’s subsequent appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court’s summary judgment ruling. Dkt. 60. Defendant Publix then filed its present motion to tax costs, seeking a total of

$2,960.16, Dkt. 61, which consisted of: (1) $2,828.40 in fees for transcripts; (2) $46.35 in fees for copies; and (3) $85.41 of other costs for delivery of court documents to Plaintiff Clark and delivery of evidence to the Clerk and the Court.

Dkt. 62 (showing Defendant Publix’s itemized bill of costs). Because Defendant Publix was the prevailing party, it is entitled to seek taxable costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Section 1920 limits taxable costs to clerk and marshal fees, necessary

transcript fees, printing and witness expenses, necessary copying and exemplification costs, certain docket fees, and compensation for court-appointed experts and interpreters. Of the $2,828.40 in fees requested for transcripts, the magistrate judge found that Defendant Publix could recover $1,052.00 for the deposition of Plaintiff Clark

and $965.40 for the deposition of Jessica Clark, as those deposition transcript and court reporter fees were necessarily obtained for use in the case. Dkt. 63 at 3–4. However, the magistrate judge concluded that additional deposition-related charges

fell “outside of the narrow scope of Section 1920[.]” Id. at 4–5. (quoting Saint Hubert v. Gulf Hosp. Mgmt., No. 8:23-cv-2799-CEH-NHA, 2025 WL 2955789, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2025)). The magistrate judge also found that Defendant Publix had not provided

sufficient information to establish that its $46.35 in copying costs were necessarily incurred for use in the case, id. at 5–6, and that the $85.41 in delivery fees fell outside the scope of Section 1920 and were not taxable costs. Id. at 6.

For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, and upon an independent review of the record, the Court rules as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 63, is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and APPROVED, and is incorporated herein;

2. Defendant Publix Super Markets, Inc.’s Second Renewed Motion to Tax Costs, Dkt. 61, is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART; and 3. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of Defendant Publix Super Markets, Inc. and against Plaintiff Adrian Clark in the amount of

$2,017.40, representing taxable costs, for which execution shall issue. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 18, 2026. /s/ William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record