Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed an amended judgment requiring William T. Perks to pay $50,668.32 in costs for daily trial transcripts obtained by the defendants in an employment discrimination action. The court held that the transcripts were necessarily obtained for use in the case and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient financial hardship to avoid taxation of costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by taxing defendants' costs for daily trial transcripts when the transcripts were allegedly unnecessary.
- Whether Perks's limited financial means precluded or required reduction of the cost award.
- Whether nonfrivolous sexual-harassment claims created an exception to the ordinary rule permitting costs against the losing party.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendants the costs of daily trial transcripts because the record reasonably supported the finding that the transcripts were necessarily obtained for use in the case.
- Indigency does not automatically preclude an award of costs, and Perks failed to meet his burden of showing that costs should not be imposed.
- The court declined to recognize an exception to the ordinary cost rule for plaintiffs who bring nonfrivolous sexual-harassment claims.
Key quotations
““[Ijndigency per se does not automatically pi'eclude an award of costs,” and “the losing party has the burden to show that costs should not be imposed.”” (770)
““[Bjecause Rule 54(d) allows costs ‘as of course,’ such an award against the losing party is the normal rule obtaining in civil litigation, not an exception.”” (770)
Factual background
The district court and defendants relied extensively on daily trial transcripts to identify admitted documents, recall testimony, resolve confusion about Perks's legal theories, prepare the jury charge, and impeach Perks during cross-examination. The district court specifically found extraordinary circumstances supporting procurement of the transcripts and taxed their costs against Perks. Perks offered testimony that he was retired and had unspecified expenses as evidence of financial hardship.
Procedural history
The district court found that daily trial transcripts were necessarily obtained for use in the case and awarded defendants their transcript costs. Perks challenged the cost award, arguing that the transcripts were unnecessary, that his limited financial means should have been considered, and that costs should be treated differently because his claims included nonfrivolous sexual-harassment allegations. The Second Circuit affirmed the amended judgment.