United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court in the above-referenced cause are Defendant
BNSF Railway Company‘s (BNSF) Bill of Costs, Doc. 60,
and Plaintiffs‘ Objections to Bill of Costs
(Plaintiff‘s Objections), Doc. 62. Having considered
the filings and relevant law, the Court overrules
Plaintiffs‘ Objections except with regard to the sum of
$148.00 for shipping and delivery fees. BNSF‘s Bill of
Costs is granted in all other respects.
Opinion and Order dated February 14, 2017, this Court granted
Defendant BNSF‘s Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 57.
Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of BNSF and it was
awarded costs in an amount to be determined after submission
of a Bill of Costs. Doc. 58. On February 24, 2017, BNSF filed
its pending Bill of Costs in which it seeks reimbursement for
$7, 300.63 in fees. Doc. 60. On March 1, 2017, Plaintiffs
filed their Objections to the Bill of Costs, Doc. 62, and
BNSF responded on March 13, 2017, Doc. 64.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), [u]nless a federal
statute, [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], 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). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1920, the only costs
that may be taxed are:
(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
costs are limited to these categories, and expenses that are
not authorized by statute or contract must be borne by the
party incurring them. See Coats v. Penrod Drilling
Corp., 5 F.3d 877, 891 (5th Cir. 1993) (district court
may decline to award costs listed in the statute but may not
award costs omitted from the list.).
party being taxed does not specifically object to a cost, the
presumption is that the cost was necessarily incurred for use
in the case and will be taxed. Kirk v. Invesco,
Ltd., No. CV H-15-833, 2017 WL 1078763, at *1 (S.D. Tex.
Mar. 22, 2017) (citing Baisden v. I'm Ready
Prods., Inc., 793 F.Supp.2d 970, 973 (S.D. Tex.
2011)). However, once an objection has been raised, the party
seeking costs bears the burden of verifying that the costs
were necessarily incurred in the case rather than just spent
in preparation and litigation of the case. Baisden,
793 F.Supp.2d at 973 (citing Fogleman v. ARAMCO, 920
F.2d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 1991)).
the court has discretion to determine the appropriateness of
awarding costs to the prevailing party. Marx v. Gen.
Revenue Corp.,568 U.S. 371, 377, 133 S.Ct. 1166,
1172-73, 185 L.Ed.2d 242 (2013); Matter of ENSCO Offshore
Co., No. CV H-09-2838, 2017 WL 631936, at *1 (S.D. Tex.
Feb. 16, 2017) (citing Baisden, 793 F.Supp.2d at
973). Nevertheless, the rule contains a strong ...