Nagel v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 653

Background

The dispute arose from a March 4, 2018 collective bargaining agreement negotiated by United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 653 (Local 653) and SuperValu Cub Foods and other independent grocers. Under the agreement, some employees lost the opportunity to receive a pension benefit plan. The plaintiffs were Local 653 members who were on track to receive that benefit.

Motion to Review Costs

The plaintiffs sought review of $8,064.25 in transcript fees for 13 depositions. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), the prevailing party in a federal civil action generally may recover costs unless a federal rule, statute, or court order provides otherwise. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2), transcript fees may be taxed as costs when the transcripts were necessarily obtained for use in the case.

The court explained that necessity is assessed based on the facts known when the deposition occurred, not later developments. A transcript’s use in a court proceeding is the most direct evidence that it was necessary, but an unused transcript may still be taxable if the deposition reasonably appeared necessary when taken. The losing party bears the burden of showing that awarding the costs would be inequitable.

Disputed Transcripts

The plaintiffs did not challenge the transcript fees for Local 653’s depositions of Shawn Moore and Matthew Nagel, or for the plaintiffs’ depositions of nonparties Tracy McDonald and Keith Rodewald.

The plaintiffs challenged fees for six depositions of Local 653 agents or employees: Amber Allen, David Blitzstein, Paul Crandall, Jessica Hayssen, Matthew Utecht, and Rena Wong. They argued that Local 653 received free copies because it exercised the right to have its witnesses read and sign the transcripts. The court found that the plaintiffs provided no support for that assertion, while Local 653 submitted invoices suggesting it had paid for the transcripts. The court also rejected the argument that later receipt of complete copies during class-certification proceedings made the transcripts unnecessary. That later possibility was not known when the depositions were taken. Because the parties identified the witnesses as likely to have discoverable information and relied on the transcripts in addressing summary judgment, the court held that the transcripts were reasonably necessary and that the plaintiffs had not shown taxation of the costs was inequitable.

The plaintiffs also challenged the transcript fee for Gabriella Riccio’s deposition because neither party filed the transcript with the court. The court noted that both sides had identified Riccio, a member of the bargaining committee that negotiated the 2018 agreement, as someone who might have discoverable information. The plaintiffs did not explain why the deposition was relevant but not necessary. The court therefore upheld taxation of that transcript fee.

Finally, the plaintiffs challenged transcript fees for the depositions of Amber Allen, Paul Crandall, Rob Kurak, and Gary Munns because Local 653 did not submit those transcripts in support of its summary-judgment motion. The court held that the depositions and transcripts were reasonably necessary because they were used in the summary-judgment proceedings, regardless of which party submitted them. The plaintiffs’ having provided complete copies in opposing summary judgment did not establish that the transcripts were unnecessary when the depositions occurred.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright denied the plaintiffs’ motion to review costs, docket number 252. The Clerk of Court’s taxation of the deposition transcript fees was left in place.