Summit v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.

Background

On July 21, 2022, the court granted Equinox Holdings, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment on Curtis Summit’s age-discrimination claims and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Equinox then submitted a bill of costs seeking $2,239.90 from Summit: $2,189.70 for reporting and transcribing a deposition and $50.20 for photocopying documents served on Summit by mail.

Summit challenged more than $700 of the deposition-related charges, the copying charge, and the overall award based on financial hardship. He also argued that imposing costs could discourage people from bringing good-faith discrimination claims. In reply, Summit submitted a sworn affidavit and bank-account statements. He stated that he worked part time as a boxing instructor, conducted about three private sessions per week, owned no home, had no pension, and had limited investments and savings.

Equinox defended several charges associated with conducting the deposition remotely, including charges for attendance, virtual participants, a secure-file suite, and an exhibit package. Equinox did not directly address the $261.75 charge labeled “Surcharge – Expert/Medical/Technical” or the $50.20 copying charge, and did not contest a $28 delivery-and-handling charge. The court noted that Equinox’s response incorrectly attributed the $261.75 amount to the $48 secure-file-suite charge; the invoice supported only the $48 charge.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally provides that costs other than attorney’s fees should be awarded to the prevailing party. Under the Southern District of New York’s local rules, deposition costs may be taxed when the deposition was used in deciding a summary-judgment motion, and copying costs may be taxed when the copies were necessarily obtained for use in the case.

The court explained that an award of costs is generally the rule, not the exception, but that the district court has discretion to review, adjust, or deny costs. Relevant equitable considerations include a plaintiff’s financial hardship and good faith in bringing the action. The court also stated that financial hardship must be supported by documents rather than conclusory statements.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Summit pursued his claims in good faith and demonstrated that imposing the full amount would cause significant financial hardship. His affidavit and bank-account statements showed part-time employment and limited financial assets. The court nevertheless concluded that these circumstances did not justify denying all costs. It also considered the disparity in resources between the parties and Equinox’s failure to directly address some of Summit’s objections.

The court exercised its discretion to reduce the bill to $1,413.45. That amount represented the charge for the original and certified deposition transcript. The reduction also reflected the unaddressed $261.75 deposition charge, the $50.20 copying charge, and the $28 delivery-and-handling charge that Equinox did not contest.

Disposition

The Clerk of Court was directed to enter a bill of costs in Equinox’s favor for $1,413.45 and to resolve the motion pending at docket number 56. The order addressed costs following the earlier summary-judgment ruling; it did not revisit the merits of Summit’s age-discrimination claims.