Opinion
ATHANASIOS SEMBOS, Plaintiff, v. PHILIPS COMPONENTS, Defendant
November 4, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Athanasios Sembos ("Sembos") brought this action against Defendant Philips Components ("PC") for age discrimination (Count I), in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act ("ADEA"); breach of contract (Count II); and promissory estoppel (Count III). Following discovery and briefing by the parties, this Court granted PC's Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The instant matter comes before the Court on Sembos' Motion to Stay Enforcement of Bill of Costs Pending Appeal and Objections to the Bill of Costs. The Court will discuss each of these motions in turn.
I. Motion to Stay Enforcement of Costs
Without citing to any authority, Sembos asks this Court to stay PC's Bill of Costs pending appeal of this matter. Other courts in this district which have been faced with such requests have denied such stays on the grounds that they are not provided by statute and would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Int'l Oil v. Uno-Ven Co., 1998 WL 895557, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 1998); Ziemack v. Centel Corp., 1997 WL 97384, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 1997). Accordingly, this Court DENIES Sembos' Motion to Stay.
II. Objections to Costs
Rule 54(d) provides that "[c]osts . . . shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). Recoverable costs include: (1) fees of the clerk; (2) fees for transcripts; (3) fees for printing and witnesses; (4) fees for copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) docket fees; and (6) compensation of court appointed experts and interpreters. 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Rule 54(d) creates a strong presumption favoring the award of costs to the prevailing party. Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd. 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997). "The presumption is difficult to overcome, and the district court's discretion is narrowly confined-the court must award costs unless it states good reasons for denying them." Id. In objecting to costs, the "losing party must affirmatively demonstrate the prevailing party is not entitled to costs." LeMoine v. Combined Communications Corp., 1996 WL 435115, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 1996).
Here, Sembos objects to the following in the Bill of Costs: (1) $884.40 in travel expenses for the deposition of one of PC's witnesses; (2) the cost of videotaping a deposition; and (3) the $.020 per page for photocopying. With regard to the first objection, PC appears to have cured Sembos' main objection, that PC did not attach any receipts, by attaching a receipt for the airfare. Consequently, this Court finds that PC's request is sufficiently documented as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1821(c)(1) and reasonable.
As for the cost of videotaping depositions, it is permissible to tax the cost of both the transcript and the videotaping if they are both "necessary and reasonable." Vardon Golf Co., Inc. v. Karsten Manuf. Corp., 2003 WL 172066, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2003). Because the deponent here is a citizen of England, this Court finds that it was both necessary and reasonable to have his deposition videotaped.
Finally, Sembos contends that PC's $0.20 per page charge for photocopying is excessive. After reviewing the relevant cases, this Court finds that $0.20 is a reasonable cost.
Accordingly, this Court OVERRULES Sembos' objections to PC's Bill of Costs.