Nekkanti v. V-Soft Consulting Group, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION

SHRIKANTH NEKKANTI PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:18-cv-784-BJB-RSE

V-SOFT CONSULTING GROUP, INC. DEFENDANT

* * * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Shrikanth Nekkanti sued V-Soft Consulting under Kentucky’s negligence per se statute for its vicarious liability for its employee’s forgery. See Complaint (DN 1- 1). Nekkanti prevailed on liability at summary judgment, DN 45, and a jury awarded him damages for lost wages and emotional distress, DN 74. He then filed a bill of costs (DN 80), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), within 30 days of the entry of judgment, see Local Rule 54.3. Nekkanti seeks (1) $282.10 for clerk fees and (2) $1,042.08 for transcripts of two depositions. DN 80. Receipts confirmed these amounts. See DN 80-1 at 3–5. V- Soft didn’t object. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) authorizes a prevailing party to recover costs, other than attorney fees. The Sixth Circuit has interpreted this language to “creat[e] a presumption in favor of awarding costs,” while still “allow[ing] denial of costs at the discretion of the trial court.” White & White, Inc. v. American Hosp. Supply Corp., 786 F.2d 728, 730 (6th Cir. 1986). Taxable costs are, however, limited to those specified by 28 U.S.C. § 1920. In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 481 F.3d 355, 359 (6th Cir. 2007) (courts have “discretion to decline requests for costs, not discretion to award costs that § 1920 fails to enumerate”) (citing Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987)). The objecting party “bears the burden of persuading the Court that taxation is improper.” Roll v. Bowling Green Metal Forming, No. 1:09-cv-81, 2010 WL 3069106, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 4, 2010). Nekkanti’s receipt indicates he seeks costs paid to the Jefferson Circuit Clerk when he filed the case in state court. See DN 80-1 at 5. Section 1920 authorizes taxation of “[f]ees of the clerk,” but the Sixth Circuit has interpreted this to exclude fees paid to the clerk of the state court. Lawrence v. Ch. Ct. of Tenn., 188 F.3d 687, 693 (6th Cir. 1999) (endorsing Eighth Circuit’s interpretation that § 1920 “does not permit [district courts] to take into account state-court filing fees”); see also Howe v. City of Akron, No. 5:06-cv-2779, 2016 WL 916701, at *20 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2016) (“fees of the clerk” refers “only to fees of the ‘clerk of this Court”); Freier v. Freier, 985 F. Supp. 710, 713 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (“a fee to a state court clerk is not authorized under § 1920”). So Nekkanti cannot recover these costs. Nekkanti also seeks costs for two deposition transcripts. Costs for any transcripts, print or electronic, “necessarily obtained for use in the case” are taxable. § 1920(2). The first transcript was of the deposition of Phil Williams, V-Soft’s former general counsel, and the other transcript was of Nekkanti’s own deposition. DN 80- 1 at 3-4. All depositions “taken within the proper bounds of discovery” are routinely found to be “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Allen v. Highlands Hospital Corp., No. 4-269, 2009 WL 10711811, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2009) (quotation omitted). Since both depositions were properly taken and used in motion practice and at trial, these transcript costs are taxable. ORDER The Court grants Nekkanti’s Bill of Costs (DN 80) for $1,042.08 for transcripts of two depositions. The Court denies costs for $282.10 paid in fees to the state-court clerk. The Clerk shall tax $1,042.08 as costs against V-Soft Consulting.

Vee { nN = Benjamin Beaton, District Judge United States District Court May 16, 2022