United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H. MILLER JUDGE
before the court is defendant Memorial Hermann Health
System's (“Memorial Hermann”) bill of costs.
Dkts. 55, 56. Plaintiff Irena Wojcik has objected to these
costs. Dkt. 57. Having reviewed the bill of costs,
objections, the record, and the applicable law, the court
finds that Wojcik's objections should be SUSTAINED IN
PART and OVERRULED IN PART, and awards costs to Memorial
Hermann in the amount of $3, 000.69.
October 3, 2019, the court granted summary judgment in favor
of Memorial Hermann. Dkt. 52. Memorial Hermann seeks to
recover $4, 429.19 in costs. Dkt. 55. Memorial Hermann seeks
$3, 087.99 in costs for written deposition transcripts, $1,
263.50 in costs for Wojcik's video deposition, and $77.70
for records retrieval from the Texas Workforce Commission.
objects to the entire $4, 429.19 of costs on the basis of the
“economic disparity” between Wojcik and Memorial
Hermann. Dkt. 57 at 3. Wojcik also make certain specific
objections. Specifically, Wojcik objects to the entire $1,
263.50 for video depositions, arguing that Memorial Hermann
did not explain why it was necessary to record her deposition
on video. Id. at 4. Wojcik further objects to
$165.00 in administrative charges associated with the written
transcript of her deposition. Id. at 5. Memorial
Hermann has not responded to Wojcik's objections.
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). Absent objections, the
clerk may tax the costs fourteen days after the prevailing
party notifies the clerk of its costs. Id. Under 28
U.S.C. § 1920, the judge or clerk may tax 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 [28 U.S.C. § 1923];
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of
interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of
special interpretation services under [28 U.S.C. §
28 U.S.C. § 1920. A district court may not award costs
omitted from the list. Cook Children's Med. Ctr. v.
New Eng. PPO Plan, 491 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir. 2007).
Rule 54(d) “authorizes the district court to deny the
award.” Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 793
(5th Cir. 2006) (citing Schwarz v. Folloder, 767
F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir. 1985)). However, the Fifth Circuit
“has held that ‘the prevailing party is prima
facie entitled to costs,' and has described the denial of
costs as ‘in the nature of a penalty.'”
Id. (quoting Schwarz, 767 F.2d at 131).
Accordingly, “the general discretion conferred by Rule
54(d)(1) has been circumscribed by the judicially-created
condition that a court ...