Card v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

126 F.R.D. 658, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9394, 1989 WL 89865
District Court, N.D. Mississippi·Decided July 18, 1989·No. Civ. A. No. DC 86-52-D-O·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DAVIDSON, District Judge.

This cause is before the court on the plaintiffs’ motion for review of taxation of costs. Defendant has requested $19,201.16 in costs in the litigation. Plaintiffs oppose the assessment of costs and vigorously object that the request is excessive. After a review of the bill of costs, the plaintiffs’ motion to review costs, the defendant’s response, the plaintiffs’ rebuttal, and the record as a whole, the court is of the opin[660]*660ion that the request was excessive and will disallow part of the bill of costs.

Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) was successful at trial and was awarded costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) which states that “costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the Court otherwise directs.” The costs which are allowed are expressly set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. State Farm submitted a bill of costs for $19,201.16 on June 12, 1989 and the clerk taxed these costs on June 16, 1989. Plaintiffs Donald and Ella Mae Card (“Cards”) promptly filed a motion to review and disallow taxation of costs. The court must now determine the costs which should be assessed against the plaintiffs pursuant to Section 1920.

State Farm has requested costs as follows: fees of the clerk ($60); transcript costs ($10,835.38); witness fees ($2,910.11); copy charges ($943.75); deposition costs ($2,875.25); service of subpoenas ($208.44); expenses of an expert witness and videotape ($624.23); and the cost of demonstrative aids ($744). The Cards claim that the costs should be wholly disallowed or reduced to the costs properly taxable under the law. The Cards specifically challenge the costs requested as follows: the fee required by the defendant’s removal to federal court, the daily transcript of the trial, witness fees and travel expenses, copying charges, and the miscellaneous costs involved.

The trial court has discretion to award costs to a prevailing party. Nissho-Iwai Co., Ltd. v. Occidental Crude Sales, 729 F.2d 1530, 1551 (5th Cir.1984). 28 U.S.C. § 1920 provides that the court may tax costs as follows: fees of the clerk and marshal, fees of the court reporter for the transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case, fees for printing and witnesses, and fees for copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case. “[W]hile an award of costs to a prevailing party is usual, the inclusion of various items within that award is within the discretion of the trial judge.” Hodge v. Seiler, 558 F.2d 284, 287 (5th Cir.1977) (quoted in Brumley Estate v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 704 F.2d 1362, 1363 (5th Cir.1983)). The court will now determine the appropriate amount which should be awarded as costs.

A filing fee is a “fee of the clerk” which is typically allowed as part of costs under Section 1920. Plaintiffs argue that it should not be required to pay two filing fees, one in state court and one in federal court. Regardless, the defendant was required to pay this cost when it removed this action to federal court. The plaintiffs’ argument is unpersuasive. Court fees are allowed as costs whether they are fees which are paid when the action was initially filed or when the action was removed. See Raio v. American Airlines, Inc., 102 F.R.D. 608, 611 (E.D.Penn.1984); Department of Highways v. McWilliams Dredging Co., 10 F.R.D. 107, 108 (W.D.La.1950), aff'd, 187 F.2d 61 (5th Cir.1951). The court is of the opinion that the filing fee for removal of the action should be taxed as a cost.

The cost of a daily trial transcript is taxable only if it was necessary for use in the case. J.T. Gibbons v. Crawford Fitting Co., 760 F.2d 613, 615-16 (5th Cir. 1985), aff'd, 482 U.S. 437, 107 S.Ct. 2494, 96 L.Ed.2d 385 (1987). The court does not find that the daily transcripts were in any way necessary, but instead finds that they were merely for the convenience of defense counsel. See Brumley, 704 F.2d at 1363-64; McDowell v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 758 F.2d 1293, 1294 (5th Cir.1985); Smith v. Board of School Comr’s, 119 F.R.D. 440, 444 (S.D.Ala.1988). The cost of the daily transcripts was not necessary to the conduct of the trial in this case. A daily transcript is a luxury few can afford. The court recognizes that a trial transcript may be necessary in some cases, but this is not such a case. See J.T. Gibbons, 760 F.2d at 616. The court is of the opinion that the cost of the daily trial transcript should be disallowed.

Witness fees are generally taxed as costs. “Although courts do not ordinarily allow fees for witnesses who have not testified at trial, a court may award such a fee if the witness was ready to testify but [661]*661extrinsic circumstances rendered his testimony unnecessary.” Nissho-Iwai, 729 F.2d at 1553. Plaintiffs strongly object to costs for Harvey McClain, defendant’s claims adjuster from North Carolina, because he did not appear at trial to testify. Plaintiffs claim that they were required to read a deposition into the record because this witness was not made available to them at trial. The court has previously disallowed costs for witnesses who did not attend the trial. Jackson v. Color Tile, Inc., 638 F.Supp. 62, 66 (N.D.Miss.1986), aff'd, 803 F.2d 201 (5th Cir.1986). The other witnesses who failed to testify were apparently available to testify at trial. E.B. Smith was precluded from testifying by the court and H & R Block’s testimony became unnecessary. The court is of the opinion that the witness costs should be allowed for all witnesses except Harvey McClain.

Attendance fees, statutory per diem, subsistence, and travel expenses are taxed as costs for both fact and expert witnesses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1821. J.T. Gibbons, 760 F.2d at 617. Costs for expert witnesses are limited to the costs which would be allowed other witnesses under Sections 1920 and 1821. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 443-45, 107 S.Ct. 2494, 2498-99, 96 L.Ed.2d 385, 391-93 (1987). Plaintiffs also challenge the travel expenses requested. The Fifth Circuit has stated that the district court should use its usual sound discretion in determining travel costs and consider the length of the journey, the necessity of the testimony, and the possibility of averting the expense. West Wind Africa Line v. Corpus Christi Marine,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Card v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 126 F.R.D. 658, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9394, 1989 WL 89865 (N.D. Miss. 1989).

126 F.R.D. 658 (Card v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Butts v. Berkeley Medical Center
N.D. West Virginia, 2018
Francisco v. Verizon South, Inc.
272 F.R.D. 436 (E.D. Virginia, 2011)
Loesel v. City of Frankenmuth
743 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E.D. Michigan, 2010)
Cofield v. Crumpler
179 F.R.D. 510 (E.D. Virginia, 1998)
Griffith v. Mt. Carmel Medical Center
157 F.R.D. 499 (D. Kansas, 1994)
Ezelle v. Bauer Corp.
154 F.R.D. 149 (S.D. Mississippi, 1994)
Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
139 F.R.D. 173 (D. Colorado, 1991)
Card v. State Farm
902 F.2d 957 (Fifth Circuit, 1990)