Opinion
No. 99 C 2419
March 31, 2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Lee Mortenson ("Mortenson") sued National Union Fire Insurance Company ("National") for breaching an insurance contract when it failed to pay a claim covered by the policy. This court granted summary judgment in National's favor. National now seeks an award of costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). Mortenson objects.
DISCUSSION
"[C]osts . . . shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). The costs that may be recovered pursuant to Rule 54(d) are specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987). They 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. Samsunq 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. (citing Congreation of the Passion v. Touche Ross Co., 854 F.2d 219, 222 (7th Cir. 1988)). The losing party must affirmatively demonstrate the prevailing party is not entitled to costs.M.T. Bonk Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., 945 F.2d 1404, 1409 (7th Cir. 1991).
National seeks costs in the amount of $8,227.74 comprised of the following:
Photocopying Charges: $6,644.99
Stenographic Transcripts of Depositions: $1,185.25
Witness Fees: $ 397.50
Total: $8,227.74
I. PHOTOCOPYING CHARGER
Copying costs are recoverable if the copies were "necessarily obtained for use in the case." 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (4). This phrase contemplates that the materials be "actually prepared for use in presenting evidence to the court." EEOC v. Kenosha Unified School Dist. No. 1, 620 F.2d 1220, 1227-28 (7th Cir. 1980); Arachnid Inc. v. Valley Recreation Products, Inc., 143 F.R.D. 192, 193 (N.D.Ill. 1992). Copies of court filings for a party's personal use, extra copies of filed papers and correspondence, and copies of cases are not recoverable. See Haroco v. American Nat'l Bank Trust of Chicago, 38 F.3d 1429, 1441 (7th Cir. 1994); McIlveen v. Stone Container Corp., 910 F.2d 1581, 1584 (7th Cir. 1990); Arachnid, 143 F.R.D. at 193.
The court is unable to determine whether National's copying costs are recoverable. "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." Helms v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1568, 1570 (N.D.Ga. 1992) (citation omitted),aff'd 998 F.2d 1023 (11th Cir. 1993). The only documentation or verification provided by National is an itemization of the dates on which portions of the $6,644.99 in copying charges were incurred. The list does not state the purpose for the copies, the number of copies made, whether multiple copies were made of the same documents, or the price per copy. "Mere lists of copying costs are insufficient for recovery." MI-Jack Products v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 1996 WL 139249, at *2 (N.D.Ill. March 26, 1996) (Conlon, J.). National's lead counsel has submitted an affidavit averring that the costs incurred are fair, reasonable, and necessary. However, this conclusory assertion does not aid the court in assessing the propriety of taxing Mortenson for National's copying costs. MI-Jack Products, 1996 WL 139249, at *2 ("Generally, conclusory assertions that copying costs were necessary are not convincing"). An explanation is particularly necessary in this case, as $4,501.64 of the $6,644.99 sought in copying costs was incurred after summary judgment briefing. Although National is not required to submit a bill of costs "containing a description so detailed as to make it impossible economically to recover photocopying costs," Northbrook Excess Surplus Ins. Co. v. Procter Gamble Co., 924 F.2d 633, 643 (7th Cir. 1991), the court cannot award National photocopying costs without some confidence that the costs are properly recoverable. In the absence of a more detailed affidavit or some other reliable verification that the copying costs were necessary for presenting evidence to the court, the court declines to tax National's photocopying costs. See, e.g. Arachnid, 143 F.R.D. at 194 (court refuses to tax copying costs where it cannot ascertain use of the copies from law firm invoices)
II. STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPTS OF DEPOSITION COSTS WITNESS FEES
National seeks $1,185.25 in costs for stenographic transcripts of depositions, and $397.50 in witness fees. However, National's request for recovery of these costs is also plagued by vagueness. The court is unable to determine whether National's request for costs associated with the deposition transcripts is reasonable. Under Local Rule 54.1, National may only recover the costs of one original and one copy of each transcript. However, National does not state the number of depositions for which it seeks costs, or the number of transcript copies made of each deposition. Moreover, National's failure to identify the witnesses prevents the court from assessing the reasonableness or necessity of the fees. Accordingly, National's request for witness fees must be denied. Sullivan v. Cheshier, 991 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (N.D.Ill. 1998) (denying recovery of witness fee where party fails to identify witness to which fee relates).
ENTER.