Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Ascot Underwriting Limited
Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Ascot Underwriting Limited, for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate 1414
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-00389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Citgo v. Starstone, Judge Woods denied Citgo’s $8,738.37 printing-cost request without prejudice but allowed possible taxation of deposition-transcript costs.
Citgo Petroleum Corporation’s request for $8,738.37 in printing costs was denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court may tax Citgo’s deposition-transcript costs in its discretion, while the defendants opposed the printing-cost request.
What happened
In Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Starstone Insurance SE, et al., Citgo asked to recover $37,065.38 for deposition transcripts and $8,738.37 for printing. The defendants opposed the printing request because Citgo did not provide invoices, explain what the printing was for, or show why it was necessary.
The court explained that a party seeking costs must adequately document and itemize them. Citgo’s affidavit stated only that its law firm had invoiced Citgo for the printing and that the amount was correct. The court found that this did not substantiate the request.
Judge Woods denied the request for printing costs without prejudice, meaning Citgo may provide further support for it. The Clerk of Court may, in its discretion, tax the deposition-transcript costs under the applicable rules, but the printing costs may not be taxed without additional substantiation.
The detailed version
- Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Ascot Underwriting Limited · No. 1:21-cv-00389
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
Citgo Petroleum Corporation sought costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, Local Civil Rule 54.1, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1923. Its request included $37,065.38 for deposition transcripts and $8,738.37 for printing. Citgo submitted an affidavit stating that its law firm had invoiced Citgo for the printing, that Citgo had paid the amount, and that the claimed costs were allowable and necessary.
The affidavit included a list of the deposition-transcript costs but did not provide additional documentation for the printing costs. The defendants opposed the printing portion of the request, arguing that Citgo had not provided invoices or other evidence showing that the printing qualified as taxable costs. They also argued that Citgo had not explained what was printed, why the printing was necessary, or the cost per page.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 54 generally allows costs other than attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, subject to applicable law and court orders. The court stated that the party seeking costs bears the burden of adequately documenting and itemizing the requested expenses. The court also considered decisions declining or reducing copying and printing costs when the requesting party failed to itemize the expenses or explain their necessity.
The court noted that the defendants’ cited cases primarily concerned photocopying, while Citgo’s bill of costs listed the amount as fees and disbursements for printing and did not list photocopying costs. Even so, the court agreed that Citgo had not explained, itemized, documented, or otherwise substantiated the $8,738.37 printing request. The affidavit’s statements that counsel had invoiced Citgo and that the amount was correctly stated were not enough.
Disposition
The court denied Citgo’s request for printing costs without prejudice. The Clerk of Court may, within its discretion, tax the deposition-transcript costs under Local Civil Rule 54.1 and Rule 54(d). The printing costs may not be taxed unless Citgo provides further substantiation, such as the supporting bills contemplated by Local Civil Rule 54.1.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.