Yousefzadeh v. Hill-Rom, Inc.

Background

Mahmoud Yousefzadeh represented himself in challenging the Clerk of Court’s taxation of costs. On December 30, 2019, the court granted Hill-Rom’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Yousefzadeh’s complaint with prejudice. Hill-Rom then submitted a bill of costs seeking $6,803.04 for printed and electronically recorded transcripts of four depositions and copies of materials obtained for use in the case, including documents anticipated as exhibits or marked as exhibits at Yousefzadeh’s deposition and medical records from four medical facilities.

On February 28, 2020, the Clerk disallowed $80 and allowed $6,723.04 in taxable costs. Yousefzadeh sought review of $3,936.79 of that amount. He challenged video recordings of his deposition and the depositions of Donna Shatava and Bob Whittemore, the written transcript costs for the second day of his deposition, and copying costs. 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. Section 1920 of Title 28 allows recovery of fees for transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case and copies of materials necessarily obtained for use in the case. The court reviews the Clerk’s taxation of costs independently and exercises discretion. The party challenging the award must show that it is unfair under the circumstances.

Analysis

Deposition video costs

The court held that Hill-Rom had not shown that the video recordings of the three depositions were necessary. Hill-Rom relied on the possibility that the recordings might be used at trial, but the court found no evidence that Hill-Rom could not compel the witnesses to testify in person, that Yousefzadeh had chosen to record the depositions, or that special circumstances required video recordings. The court therefore reduced the bill of costs by $2,772.50 for the video-deposition expense.

Written deposition transcript costs

The court rejected Yousefzadeh’s objection to the costs of the second day of his deposition. It found that his testimony was relevant, noted that no objection apparently had 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 allowed the $879.09 in copying costs. It found no indication that the copies of documents used or anticipated as deposition exhibits were obtained for reasons other than preparing for trial. It also found the copying rate, approximately 12 cents per page, reasonable. The court further accepted Hill-Rom’s explanation that the medical records were obtained to address Yousefzadeh’s damages claims, which involved alleged emotional distress with physical symptoms. The documentation showed that Hill-Rom sought only the amounts charged by the medical providers for producing the records, rather than payment for reviewing them.

Financial inability to pay

The court rejected Yousefzadeh’s alternative request to vacate the cost judgment based on inability to pay. Although he submitted evidence that he received approximately $1,472 per month in Social Security benefits, that his family received Minnesota Care, and that his wife had recently been unemployed, the court found that the record lacked detailed information about his overall finances, including possible assets or savings. The court concluded that it could not determine with certainty that he was unable to pay the cost judgment.

Order

The court granted in part and denied in part Yousefzadeh’s motion for review of taxation of costs. It directed the Clerk of Court to tax costs against Yousefzadeh in the amount of $3,950.54.