Opinion
Case No. 98 C 3555
August 4, 2003
ORDER
Plaintiffs Randy Smith and Elbert Lee Reeves sued defendants Northeastern Illinois University ("NEIU") and Gerald Leenheer for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1981, and 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Following a jury verdict in defendants' favor, NEIU and Leenheer filed a motion for bill of costs, seeking to be reimbursed as the prevailing party for the costs of nine deposition transcripts, for a total of $3,302.35. As explained below, because plaintiffs' objections are unpersuasive, defendants' motion for bill of costs is granted in the full amount of $3,302.35.
The costs for deposition transcripts are taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (2), and plaintiffs did not object to defendants' calculations regarding the costs of the transcripts. Instead, they urge the court to deny the motion based on the parties' relative abilities to pay. In other words, plaintiffs argue that if costs are not awarded, the defendants' costs will be paid by the State, which is in a better financial position than plaintiffs as private citizens. This argument lacks merit. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d), costs are allowed "as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs." The court has discretion, of course, but absent misconduct by the prevailing party or the losing party's inability to pay, "the presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party is difficult to overcome. . . ." Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997). Thus, if the losing party claims financial hardship, he must "provide evidence of [his] inability to pay sufficient to overcome the presumption that [the prevailing party] was entitled to its costs." Corder v. Lucent Tech. Inc., 162 F.3d 924, 929 (7th Cir. 1998). Showing that the prevailing party is in a better position to pay — which is all that plaintiffs contend — is hardly the equivalent of showing that the losing party is unable to pay. See Sanglap v. LaSalle Bank, FSB, 194 F. Supp.2d 798, 801 (N.D. Ill. 2002) ("actual indigency, not merely limited financial resources, must be demonstrated").
Plaintiffs' other objection is that their case was a difficult one that turned largely on the Supreme Court's decision in National Passenger Railroad v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002), which was issued shortly before trial. In essence, plaintiffs claim that they had a good faith basis to bring their claim, and the outcome could have gone either way. That may be true, but that is not a basis to withhold awarding costs to defendants. The losing party's good faith in bringing a claim does not justify denying the prevailing party's bill of costs. Coyne-Delaney Co., Inc. v. Capital Dev. db. of State of Illinois, 717 F.2d 385, 390 (7th Cir. 1983).
Defendants' motion for bill of costs is granted in the full amount of $3,302.35.