The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 19-cv-61141-BLOOM/Valle
MARILYN ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PARADISE CRUISE LINE
OPERATOR LTD., INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER ON BILL OF COSTS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Paradise Cruise Line Operator Ltd.,
Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Application for Bill of Costs, ECF No. [135] (“Bill of Costs”), following the
entry of a final judgment in its favor in the instant action. See ECF No. [132]. Curiously, despite
noting her opposition to the Bill of Costs upon conferral, see ECF No. [135-5] at 7, Plaintiff failed
to timely submit any response or objection to the Bill of Costs. The Court has carefully reviewed
the Bill of Costs, the record in this case, and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For
the reasons set forth below, the Bill of Costs is granted.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute, these
rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed
to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). A prevailing party is “[a] party in whose favor a
judgment is rendered, regardless of the amount of damages awarded.” Buckhannon Bd. & Care
Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603 (2001); see also Util.
Automation 2000, Inc. v. Choctawhatchee Elec. Coop., 298 F.3d 1238, 1248 (11th Cir. 2002). A
prevailing party is “entitled to receive all costs that are recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.”
Bryant v. Cab Asset Mgmt., LLC, No. 10-61514-CIV, 2011 WL 1331267, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6,
2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 1598732 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2011). “Such
costs, however, may not exceed those permitted.” Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F.3d 1265, 1277 (11th
Cir. 2007) (citing Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 302 F.3d 1207, 1225 (11th Cir.
2002)); see also Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987).
“Similarly, when a district court taxes costs against a losing party, the award of costs bears interest
from date of original judgment.” Taylor Indus. Constr., Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., No. 8:16-cv-
2960-T-SPF, 2020 WL 1873595, at *11 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2020) (citing BankAtlantic v. Blythe
Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045, 1052 (11th Cir. 1994); Ga. Ass’n of Retarded Citizens
v. McDaniel, 855 F.2d 794, 799 (11th Cir. 1988)).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the Court may tax as costs the following:
(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.
Unless otherwise prohibited, “[a] prevailing party may recover costs as a matter of course”;
“the losing party bears the burden of demonstrating that a cost is not taxable, unless knowledge
regarding the proposed cost is within the exclusive control of the prevailing party.” Monelus v.
Tocodrian, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1332-33 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (internal citations omitted).
“Upon the filing of a timely motion or bill of costs, which sets forth in detail the amounts requested,
the opposing party has the burden of showing that the requested costs fall outside the scope of this
statute or are otherwise unreasonable.” Tejeda v. Swire Props., Inc., No. 18-23725-CIV, 2019 WL
8160724, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 26, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-23725-
CIV, 2020 WL 1062975 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2020); see also Eugene v. 3Don & Partner Est. Grp.,
LLC, No. 07-80439-CIV, 2009 WL 996016, at *14 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2009).
Defendant is the prevailing party in this matter, and it seeks to recover costs for deposition
transcripts and court reporter fees, and for copying expenses. Specifically, Defendant seeks
reimbursement in the amount of $4,750.70 for court reporter fees, video fees, and printed and
electronically recorded deposition transcripts necessarily obtained for use in this case, and $272.22
for copying expenses. In total, Defendant seeks reimbursement for $5,022.92 in taxable costs.
Additionally, Defendant has submitted all relevant documentation in support of its request, and
the associated invoices and payment records. See ECF Nos. [135-2], [135-3], & [135-4].
The Court first addresses recovery of costs for deposition transcripts and court reporter
fees. “Deposition transcripts are taxable costs if they were ‘necessarily obtained’ for use in the
case.” Greer v. Ivey, No. 6:15-cv-677-Orl-41GJK, 2020 WL 2841377, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28,
2020) (quoting Taylor Indus. Constr., Inc., 2020 WL 1873595, at *8), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 6:15-cv-677-Orl-41GJK, 2020 WL 2838843 (M.D. Fla. June 1, 2020). “Court
reporter per diem appearance fees and exhibit costs are also recoverable.” Id. (citing Comput.
Program & Sys. v. Wazu Holdings, Ltd., No. 15-00405, 2019 WL 1119352, at *13 (S.D. Fla. Mar.
11, 2019)). “Non-recoverable deposition costs include litigation packages, expedited transcript
fees, rough drafts, shipping and handling fees, disc copies, and e-transcript fees.” Id. (citing
Thyfault v. 21st Century Oncology, LLC, No. 3:16-cv-1094, 2019 WL 4016155, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
Aug. 26, 2019); Watson v. Lake Cty., 492 F. App’x 991, 997 (11th Cir. 2012); Comput. Program
& Sys., 2019 WL 1119352, at *10 (collecting cases on nonrecoverable deposition costs)).
Ultimately, “courts have wide latitude in determining whether a deposition was
‘necessarily obtained’ for use in the case.” Eugene, 2009 WL 996016, at *14 (quoting Ferguson
v. Bombardier Srvs. Corp., No. 8:03-cv-539-T-31DAB, 2007 WL 601921, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb.
21, 2007)). Further, “deposition costs are taxable even if a prevailing party’s use of a deposition is
minimal or not critical to that party’s ultimate success[.]” Comput. Program & Sys. Inc., 2019 WL
1119352, at *8 (quoting Ferguson, 2007 WL 601921, at *3). “The test is whether any portions of
the depositions were ‘related to an issue which was present in the case at the time the deposition
was taken.’” Sweet Sage Cafe, LLC v. Town of N. Redington Beach, Fla., No. 8:18-cv-1080-T-
02CPT, 2019 WL 1959907, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 2, 2019) (quoting EEOC v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d
600, 621 (11th Cir. 2000)).
“A deposition taken within the proper bounds of discovery will normally be deemed to be
‘necessarily obtained for use in the case’ and its costs will be taxed unless the opposing party
interposes a specific objection that the deposition was improperly taken or unduly prolonged.”
Comput. Program & Sys. Inc., 2019 WL 1119352, at *9 (citing Air Turbine Tech., Inc. v. Atlas
Copco AB, No. 01-8288-CIV, 2008 WL 544731, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2008)). “As such, the
non-prevailing party must pose a specific objection to any deposition transcript that it believes is
not taxable.” Id. (citing Dillon v. Axxsys Int’l., Inc., No. 8:98-cv-2237-T-23TGW, 2006 WL
3841809, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2006)).
Defendant asserts that the court reporter fees and deposition transcript costs incurred—
namely, for the depositions of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s husband, corporate representative Grant
Plummer, and Cruise Management International’s corporate representative Kelly Gordon—were
necessarily obtained for use in the case and were in fact used in support of Defendant’s defense of
the case throughout discovery and dispositive motion briefing. See ECF No. [135-2] (invoices for
the court reporter fees, transcript fees, and deposition video services for the depositions of Plaintiff,
her husband, Grant Plummer, and Kelly Gordon). Defendant’s Bill of Costs and supporting
attachments sufficiently establish that the costs incurred for deposition transcripts and court
reporter fees were necessarily obtained for use in the case. Absent any objection from Plaintiff as
to these costs, the Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to reimbursement of $4,750.70 for
the court reporter fees, video fees, and printed and electronically recorded deposition transcripts.
See Early v. City of Homested, No. 18-24260-CIV, 2020 WL 992776, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31,
2020) (“Further, the deposition transcripts included in the motion were necessary for the successful
presentation of the defenses in the case. Defendants have thus met their burden to seek
reimbursement of these costs and for the amounts requested. Under those circumstances, a strong
presumption exists in favor of awarding costs.” (citing Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP,
846 F.3d 1159, 1166 (11th Cir. 2017))), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-24260-CIV,
2020 WL 977951 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2020).
Likewise, “Section 1920 provides for fees for ‘copies of papers necessarily obtained for
use in the case.’” Helms v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1568, 1570 (N.D. Ga. 1992)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4)), aff’d, 998 F.2d 1023 (11th Cir. 1993). “Copies attributable to
discovery, copies of pleadings, correspondence, documents tendered to opposing party, copies of
exhibits and documents prepared for the Court’s consideration are recoverable.” Brown v. Lassiter-
Ware, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-1074-Orl-36DAB, 2014 WL 5258912, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2014)
(citation omitted). “Copies made merely for the convenience of counsel, however, are not
recoverable.” Sweet Sage Cafe, LLC, 2019 WL 1959907, at *2 (citing Health First, Inc. v. Hynes,
No. 6:11-cv-715-Orl-41KRS, 2015 WL 12977509, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2015)).
“Similar to deposition costs, ‘[i]n evaluating copying costs, the court should consider
whether the prevailing party could have reasonably believed that it was necessary to copy the
papers at issue.’” Eugene, 2009 WL 996016, at *14 (quoting W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d at 623). “The
party seeking recovery of photocopying costs must come forward with evidence showing the
nature of the documents copied, including how they were used or intended to be used in the case.”
Helms, 808 F. Supp. at 1570 (citing Corsair Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Moskovitz, 142 F.R.D. 347, 353
(N.D. Ga. 1992) (Forrester, J.); Desisto Coll. v. Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, 718 F. Supp. 906,
914 (M.D. Fla. 1989)). “A prevailing party may not simply make unsubstantiated claims that such
documents were necessary, since the prevailing party alone knows for what purpose the copies
were made.” Id. (citing Corsair Asset Mgmt., Inc., 142 F.R.D. at 353).
Defendant also seeks to recover $272.22 in copying expenses incurred in connection with
this case. Specifically, Defendant explains that these copying expenses were for copies of
shipboard deck plans for production in discovery, materials and exhibits to prepare for one of the
two depositions of Grant Plummer, materials and exhibits to prepare for the deposition of
Plaintiff’s husband, and materials to prepare for mediation, all of which were necessary for
Defendant to defend itself in this matter and relevant to the issue of liability and damages. Thus,
Defendant argues that these copies were made under the reasonable belief that they were necessary
to the issues raised in this action. Further, in addition to attaching the invoices for these copying
expenses themselves, ECF No. [135-3], Defendant also submits an itemization of all the costs
claimed, and the nature and intended purpose of each such cost, see ECF No. [135-4] (itemization
of court reporter fees per deponent, deposition transcript fees per deponent, deposition
Case No. 19-cv-61141-BLOOM/Valle
videographer fee; itemization of copying fees incurred and what the copies were used for during
these proceedings). The Court is satisfied that these costs were necessarily obtained for use in this
case. As such, Defendant is entitled to recover $272.22 in copying expenses.
Based upon a review of the materials submitted by Defendant, the Court finds that the
requested costs are reasonable and recoverable. See Greer, 2020 WL 2841377, at *2 (“Deposition
transcripts are taxable costs if they were ‘necessarily obtained’ for use in the case. Court reporter
per diem appearance fees and exhibit costs are also recoverable.” (citations omitted)); Brown, 2014
WL 5258912, at *4 (“Copies attributable to discovery, copies of pleadings, correspondence,
documents tendered to opposing party, copies of exhibits and documents prepared for the Court’s
consideration are recoverable.”). Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to recover a total amount of
$5,022.92 in taxable costs, including deposition and court reporter fees ($4,750.70) and copying
expenses ($272.22), and this “award of costs bears interest from date of original judgment.”!
Taylor Indus. Constr., Inc., 2020 WL 1873595, at *11.
Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Application for Bill of Costs, ECF No. [135], is GRANTED.
2. Defendant is awarded $5,022.92 in taxable costs, plus post-judgment interest from
the date of the judgment.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 20, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
' This Court entered Final Judgment on July 2, 2020. See ECF No. [132].
Counsel of Record