P. WAYNE WOODARD, Plaintiff,
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant.
MICHAEL R. DAVIS, ESQ., WILLARD J. MOODY, JR., ESQ., Moody, Strople Law Firm, Portsmouth, VA, for the Plaintiff.
LAWRENCE R. BAILEY, JR., ESQ., Eckert, Seamans Law Firm. White Plains, NY, THOMAS M. SMITH, ESQ., Office of Thomas M. Smith, New York, NY, for the Defendant.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
GARY L. SHARPE, Chief District Judge.
This Federal Employers' Liability Act matter was commenced by plaintiff P. Wayne Woodard against defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. in June 2010. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Following a jury trial in August 2013, in which the jury returned a verdict in favor of Woodard, (Dkt. No. 136), judgment was entered against CSX in the amount of $546, 812, (Dkt. No. 139). Woodard thereafter filed a bill of costs in which he seeks $53, 920.05. (Dkt. No. 140.) Pending are CSX's objections to the bill of costs. (Dkt. No. 141.) For the reasons that follow, the Clerk is directed to tax $6, 277.01 as costs.
II. Legal Standard
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) authorizes the recovery of costs by a prevailing party "[u]nless a federal statute, [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], or a court order provides otherwise." Recoverable costs are limited to those enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which sets out the following taxable costs:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
Whitfield v. Scully,
241 F.3d 264, 269-70 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987)). "[B]ecause Rule 54(d) allows costs as of course, ' such an award against the losing party is the normal rule obtaining in civil litigation, " thereby placing on the losing party the "burden to show that costs should not be imposed." Id. at 270 (quoting Mercy v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 748 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1984)). Where a bill of costs is challenged, the reviewing district ...