United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division
ORDER TAXING COSTS
GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant 4JLJ, LLC's Amended Bills
of Costs (D.E. 89) and memorandum in support thereof (D.E.
90). Defendant requests costs in the amount of $11, 880.09.
D.E. 89. Plaintiff Anthony Ferrara filed objections to the
bill of costs (D.E. 91), Defendant filed a response (D.E.
92), and Plaintiff filed a reply (D.E. 93). For the reasons
set forth below, the Court awards Defendant costs in the
amount of $7, 775.46.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), costs other than
attorney's fees should be granted to the prevailing
party. Rule 54 affords the court discretion to award taxable
costs according to the circumstances of the case, and 28
U.S.C. § 1920 defines which costs are taxable.
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S.
437, 440 (1987). The statute states:
A judge or clerk of any court of the United States 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
interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
28 U.S.C. § 1920.
party who seeks to recover costs has the burden of showing
the necessity and reasonableness of the costs requested.
Faculty Rights Coal. v. Shahrokhi, No. Civ.A.
H-04-2127, 2005 WL 1924192, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2005).
A district court has wide discretion to determine whether the
prevailing party is entitled to an award of costs for claimed
expenses. Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d
1041, 1049 (5th Cir. 1998); Conoco, Inc. v. Energy &
Envtl. Int'l, L.C., No. Civ.A. H-01-4242 (S.D. Tex.
Mar. 22, 2006). Nevertheless, Rule 54 creates a strong
presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded costs
permitted under § 1920. Sheets v. Yamaha Corp.,
891 F.2d 533, 539 (5th Cir. 1990).
Timeliness of Amended Bill of Costs
asserts that Defendant's amended bill of costs was
untimely filed. Defendant filed its original bill of costs
within 14 days of the final judgment, without attaching an
itemization or any supporting documentation for the requested
costs as required by the Clerk's bill of costs form.
Plaintiff objected to many of the costs and the lack of
evidence supporting them. Defendant then simultaneously
withdrew the original bill of costs and filed an amended bill
of costs which included documentation to support ...