Olutosin v. Lee

Background

Ajamu Olutosin moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) to vacate or modify the taxation of costs sought by the defendants. “Taxation of costs” is the process of determining which litigation expenses the prevailing party may recover from the opposing party. Olutosin argued that the defendants’ claimed expenses were unnecessary and excessive. The defendants argued that, as the prevailing parties, they could recover costs reasonably and necessarily incurred at trial.

Rule 54(d)(1) generally allows costs other than attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. The court explained that recoverable costs include the specific items listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, including transcript fees necessarily obtained for use in the case. Under the Southern District of New York’s local rules, a deposition transcript and one copy may be taxed when the deposition was used or received in evidence at trial, or when the court used it in deciding certain motions.

Requested Costs

The defendants sought $5,127.18 for daily trial transcripts and $754.50 for travel and lodging expenses for Ms. Zwillinger, whom they described as an out-of-state witness. Olutosin questioned whether those expenses were necessary but agreed that the defendants were entitled to at least $1,512.50: $1,050 for his deposition and $462.50 for Ms. Zwillinger’s airfare.

The trial involved one claim and lasted less than a week. Testimonial and documentary evidence was presented over four days, followed on the fifth day by summations, jury instructions, deliberations, and a verdict.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Ms. Zwillinger’s testimony was relevant and material, making her travel and lodging expenses reasonably necessary. The court reached a different conclusion about the daily trial transcripts. It determined that the transcripts were not necessary and were instead more convenient for defense counsel, who could have taken notes and summarized the testimony. The court also stated that the transcripts were not necessarily required for a directed-verdict motion.

The court considered that Olutosin was indigent and that imposing the daily-transcript costs would create severe financial hardship. It therefore exercised its discretion to exclude those costs while allowing the deposition cost and the witness’s actual travel and lodging expenses.

Disposition

The court granted Olutosin’s motion in part. It determined that the defendants were entitled to $1,804.50 in taxable costs, consisting of the $1,050 deposition cost and $754.50 in travel and lodging expenses for Ms. Zwillinger. The Clerk was directed to enter a judgment of costs against Olutosin in favor of the defendants for $1,804.50, and the motion was terminated at ECF No. 237.