ST. LOUIS – A woman who lost an age discrimination lawsuit still owes more than $1,900 to the defendant, according to a federal judge.
Judge E. Richard Webber of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled April 9 that defendant SSM Audrain Healthcare cannot recover costs of videography or the shipping and handling of written transcripts, but plaintiff Mary Harrison is taxed in the amount of $1,912.50.
Harrison filed an age discrimination complaint against SSM Audrain Healthcare on March 10, 2017. On Jan. 4, the federal court granted Audrain’s motion for summary judgment, after which the company filed a bill of costs, to which Harrison objected.
In the April 9 ruling, Webber noted the company requested compensation for only three things: $1,967 for written transcript services for Harrison’s Nov. 30, 2017, deposition; $965 for videographer services for the same deposition; and $24 for copies of records from the Missouri Department of Labor.
Webber explained his broad discretion over awarding costs to a party that prevails in this type of complaint stems from the 2011 8th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Blakley v. Schlumberger Technology Corp. He further said the losing party — in this case Harrison — “bears the burden of overcoming the presumption the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs,” a precedent the 8th Circuit established in its 2015 opinion in Stanley v. Cottell Inc.
“Before any bill of costs is taxed, the party claiming any item of cost or disbursement must attach an affidavit, having knowledge of the facts, that such item is correct and has been necessarily incurred in the case and that services for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily preformed,” Webber wrote.
Harrison objected to Audrain’s request to be compensated for written transcripts and video of the same hearing.
“The recovery of costs for both printed and electronically recorded transcripts of the same deposition is permissible, as long as each transcript was necessarily obtained for use in the case,” Webber wrote. “While courts have found it permissible for both printed and electronically recorded deposition fees to be assessed for the same deposition, the circumstances surrounding the fees determine whether they are necessarily obtained for use in the case.”
According to Webber, Harrison’s underlying complaint “does not reasonably create the likelihood of complexity, or other factors,” that would require Audrain having both the transcript and video. As such, he determined Harrison would only be on the hook for the written transcription fee.
He also reduced the company’s request for that line item by $79, saying the law that allows the company to seek compensation from a plaintiff does not authorize reimbursement for postage and delivery expenses. Since the transcription bill included a $79 line item for shipping and handling, Webber limited Harrison’s obligation to $1,888 for the actual service of transcribing her deposition testimony.
Webber further said Audrain’s request for the records from the state labor department was “reasonable and necessary,” clearing the company to request Harrison pay it the $24 used to collect those documents.
“Labor records are clearly reasonable and necessary where Plaintiff has put an employment action at issue in the complaint,” Webber wrote.
With the written transcript costs and state records request cost combined, Webber said Harrison will have to pay $1,912.