SSC8, LLC v. Daniel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

SSC8, LLC, and WMAC 2014, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 8:22-cv-289-WFJ-AAS

SALLY L. DANIEL, Hernando County

Tax Collector; DAVID W. JORDAN,

Lake County Tax Collector; Bruce

VICKERS, Osceola County Tax

Collector; J.R. KROLL, Seminole County

Tax Collector; CHRIST CRAFT, St. Lucie

County Tax Collector; and WILL

ROBERTS, Volusia County Tax Collector,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Lake County Tax

Collector David W. Jordan’s Proposed Bill of Costs, Dkt. 167, and Memorandum

in Support, Dkt. 169. Plaintiffs SSC8, LLC, and WMAC 2014, LLC responded in

opposition. Dkt. 170. Upon careful consideration, the Court grants-in-part and

denies-in-part Defendant Jordan’s proposed costs.

ANALYSIS

As a prevailing party in this action, Defendant Jordan seeks for an award of

costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Rule

54(d)(1) provides that costs “should be allowed to the prevailing party” unless a

federal law, federal rule, or court order provides otherwise. As the Eleventh Circuit

has explained, there is a “strong presumption” that a prevailing party will be

awarded costs under Rule 54(d). Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP, 846

F.3d 1159, 1166 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (quoting Mathews v. Crosby, 480

F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007)).

Costs that may be awarded are those explicitly authorized by statute.

Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 445 (1987). Section 1920

authorizes the taxation of the following costs:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;

(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily

obtained for use in the case;

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;

(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any

materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the

case;

(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;

(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of

interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special

interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

28 U.S.C. § 1920.

To recover costs, the prevailing party must present adequate evidence to

enable a court to determine the specific costs incurred. Loranger v. Stierheim, 10

F.3d 776, 784 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Upon a sufficient showing by the

prevailing party, the opposing party “must overcome” the strong presumption in

favor of awarding costs. See Mano Healthcare Corp. v. Lomelo, 929 F.2d 633, 639

(11th Cir. 1991).

Here, Defendant Jordan seeks to recover $3,446.34 in costs. Dkt. 167. The

affidavit of Defendant Jordan’s attorney includes the following cost-breakdown:

UPS – check to Attorney Middleton for $31.67

transcript of Bob McKee in prior case

Robert Law – Copy of deposition of Bob $300.00

McKee in prior case

Charles W. Ross: 8/18/22 Mediation fee $1,110.00

Transcript of Injunction hearing $309.75

USB Flash drives for exhibits at trial $23.53

Costs of making copies of any material $894.15

where the copies are necessarily obtained

for use in the case

Veritex, LLC: Deposition transcript of $777.24

David W. Jordan

TOTAL $3,446.34

Dkt. 169-1 at 2. For analysis purposes, the Court will separate these costs into three

categories: transcript costs, copying costs, and other costs. See Dkt. 167.

I. Transcript Costs

Defendant Jordan seeks to recover $1,386.99 in transcript costs. Dkt. 167.

This total includes a copy of this Court’s preliminary injunction hearing transcript

($309.75), a transcript of former Lake County Tax Collector Bob McKee’s

deposition taken in a prior case ($300.00), and the deposition transcript of

Defendant Jordan ($777.24). See Dkt. 169-1 at 2.

Section 1920(2) expressly authorizes the taxation of “transcripts necessarily

obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). Transcripts obtained “merely

for convenience, to aid in thorough preparation, or for investigative purposes” are

not taxable. See Barfield v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 3:14-CV-1031-J-PDB, 2017

WL 4077042, at *1 n.4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2017) (citing EEOC v. W&O, Inc., 213

F.3d 600, 620, 623 (11th Cir. 2000)). Neither Defendant Jordan nor his attorney

explain how the requested deposition transcript costs were “necessarily obtained”

for use in this case. See Dkts. 169 & 169-1. They merely provide receipts for the

purchases of these transcripts. Dkt. 167-1.

However, a review of the record shows that Defendant Jordan offered Mr.

McKee’s deposition transcript—which concerns the same issues presented in this

case—as an exhibit at both the preliminary injunction hearing and trial. See Dkts.

107-1 & 165-1; see also Dkt. 159 at 9 (Defendants’ written closing statement

referencing Mr. McKee’s deposition). Similarly, the trial transcript reflects that

Defendant Jordan offered the preliminary injunction hearing transcript as an

exhibit. See Dkt. 159 at 4, 24 (Defendants’ closing statement referencing

preliminary injunction hearing transcript). The parties stipulated to the admission

of these transcripts at trial. The Court therefore finds that Mr. McKee’s deposition

transcript1 and the preliminary injunction hearing transcript were necessarily

obtained for use in this case. See, e.g., LexJet Corp. v. Breathing Color, Inc., No.

8:11-cv-2828-T-30TBM, 2014 WL 3887517, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2014)

(record revealed that transcript was necessarily obtained for use in case).

Though the record demonstrates the necessity of Mr. McKee’s deposition

transcript and the preliminary injunction hearing transcript, the same cannot be

said of Defendant Jordan’s deposition transcript. With no showing of how his

deposition transcript was used in this case, Defendant Jordan is not entitled to

recover that cost. Accordingly, of the $1,386.99 in transcript costs that Defendant

seeks, he is entitled to recover $609.75.

II. Copying Costs

Next, Defendant Jordan requests $894.15 in copying costs. Dkt. 167. Like

transcripts, copying costs are recoverable if “necessarily obtained for use in the

1 Though Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Jordan could have obtained Mr. McKee’s deposition

transcript online at no cost, see Dkt. 170 at 1−2, they fail to specify the online location of the

transcript. Mr. McKee’s deposition transcript does not appear to be filed on the docket of the

Leon County Circuit Court case in which the deposition was noticed. See Case No. 2014-CA-

001217.

case.” 28 U.S.C. 1920(4). Defendant Jordan and his attorney again provide no

insight into the necessity of these costs. See Dkts. 169 & 169-1. In fact, none of the

receipts provided by Defendant Jordan and his attorney pertain to copies. See Dkt.

167-1. Defendant Jordan has therefore failed to provide adequate evidence

permitting the Court to determine the specific copying costs incurred. See

Loranger, 10 F.3d at 784. With no showing of the substance of the copies or their

purpose in this case, Defendant Jordan cannot recover these costs.

III. Other Costs

Finally, Defendant Jordan seeks to recover $1,165.20 in other costs. Dkt.

167. This sum includes flash drive costs ($23.53), a mediation fee ($1,110.00), and

what appears to be a shipping fee ($31.67). Id. None of these costs are recoverable

under § 1920. See Watson v. Lake Cnty., 492 F. App’x 991, 997 (11th Cir. 2012)

(costs for shipping and items such as binders and tabs are not recoverable); Gary

Brown & Assocs., Inc. v. Ashdon, Inc., 268 F. App’x 837, 846 (11th Cir. 2008)

(mediation expenses are not recoverable). Accordingly, the Court will not award

Defendant Jordan $1,165.20 in other costs.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-

PART Defendant Jordan’s Proposed Bill of Costs, Dkt. 167. Following the Deputy

Clerk’s entry of a final bill of costs, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor

of Defendant Jordan and against Plaintiffs in the amount of $609.75.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on April 26, 2023.

/s/ William F. Jung

WILLIAM F. JUNG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Counsel of Record