Yousefzadeh v. Hill-Rom, Inc.

Background

The court had previously granted Hill-Rom Co., Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Mahmoud Yousefzadeh’s complaint with prejudice. Hill-Rom then submitted a bill of costs seeking $6,803.04 for deposition transcripts, deposition videos, and copies of documents and medical records. The Clerk of Court disallowed $80 and entered a cost judgment for $6,723.04.

Yousefzadeh, who was representing himself, requested judicial review of the cost judgment. He challenged $3,936.79 in costs. He argued that video recordings of his deposition and two witnesses’ depositions were unnecessary, that Hill-Rom should not recover the costs of the second day of his deposition, and that Hill-Rom made too many copies of documents and improperly obtained copies of his medical records. Alternatively, he asked the court to vacate the cost judgment because of his financial condition.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally allows costs other than attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, taxable costs can include fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case and fees for copies necessarily obtained for use in the case. The court reviewed the Clerk’s taxation of costs independently and considered whether the award was unfair under the circumstances.

Analysis

Deposition video costs. The court held that Hill-Rom had not shown that the video recordings of Yousefzadeh’s deposition and the depositions of Donna Shatava and Bob Whittemore were necessary. Hill-Rom relied on the possibility that the videos might be used at trial, but the court found no evidence that the witnesses could not be required to testify live, that Yousefzadeh had elected to record the depositions, or that special circumstances made video necessary. The court also found that Hill-Rom had not explained why written deposition testimony would be insufficient. It therefore reduced the bill of costs by $2,772.50 for the video depositions.

Written deposition transcript costs. The court rejected Yousefzadeh’s objection to the written transcript costs for the second day of his deposition. The court found that his testimony was relevant, noted that no objection appeared to have been made to the magistrate judge during the deposition, and found no evidence that the deposition meaningfully exceeded the seven-hour limit. Those costs remained recoverable.

Copying costs. The court rejected Yousefzadeh’s challenge to $879.09 in copying costs. It found that the copies of documents used or anticipated for use as deposition exhibits were obtained for trial preparation and that the approximately 12-cent-per-page rate was reasonable. It also found that the medical records were obtained to address his damages claims, which included alleged emotional distress with physical symptoms. The court concluded that Hill-Rom sought only the costs charged by the medical providers for retrieving the records, not compensation for time spent reviewing them.

Ability to pay. The court also rejected Yousefzadeh’s request to vacate the entire cost judgment based on his finances. He submitted information about Social Security benefits, Minnesota Care, and his wife’s unemployment benefits, but the court found that the record did not provide sufficiently detailed information about his overall financial condition, including potential assets or savings. The court therefore could not determine that requiring payment would be unfair.

Order

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that Yousefzadeh’s Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs was granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of Court was directed to tax costs against Yousefzadeh in the amount of $3,950.54.