United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION & ORDER
HAROLD BAER, Jr., District Judge. 
After prevailing in a jury trial before this Court, Defendants Fashion Institute of Technology ("FIT"), Laura Solomon, Colette Wong, Linda Muglia and Carmela Speranza (collectively, "Defendants") filed a Bill of Costs, which was entered, without objection, by the Clerk of Court. Plaintiffs Genette Colon and Elvimar Rivas ("Plaintiffs") subsequently moved to enlarge the time to object to Defendants' Bill of Costs and reverse the Clerk's award to Defendants pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 54(d)(1). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
On November 18, 2013, Plaintiffs' counsel was served with notice that a hearing on Defendants' Bill of Costs would take place on December 11, 2013. See Santos Aff. Ex. A. However, Plaintiffs' counsel neither appeared for the hearing nor attempted to file objections until two hours after the hearing. Def.'s Reply Mem. at 1; Pl.'s Mem. at 3. Plaintiffs' counsel states that he was unable to make timely objections "due to having car battery problems that were beyond [his] control." Pl.'s Mem. at 3. On December 19, 2013, eight days after the hearing, this motion was filed. Pl.'s Mem. at 1.
Plaintiffs seek reversal of the Clerk's award of $10, 762.48 in costs to Defendants. See Dckt. No. 67. 12/11/2013 Bill of Costs ("Bill of Costs"). The Clerk taxed costs of $9, 152.21 for transcripts and $1, 610.27 for "exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case." Id. Specifically, this appears to include $3, 325.55 for transcripts of Plaintiffs' depositions, Santos Aff. Ex. A at 7-9, $5826.66 for expedited trial transcripts,  $727.29 for copying services, id. at 6, and $882.98 for the retrieval of medical records, id. at 15-17.
A. Enlargement of Time for Objection and Review of Costs
After the Clerk of Court assesses costs other than attorney's fees, a court may "review the clerk's action" if a party files a motion within seven days. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). A Court may extend a filing deadline "on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B). "To determine whether a party's neglect is excusable, a district court should take into account: [t]he danger of prejudice to the [opposing party],  the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings,  the reason for the delay, including whether it was in the reasonable control of the movant, and  whether the movant acted in good faith." Tancredi v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 378 F.3d 220, 228 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal citation and quotation omitted). A finding of excusable neglect is permissible when a party's failure to meet deadlines is due to "an act of God or some other circumstances beyond [his] control." Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394 (1993). Excusable neglect is "a somewhat elastic concept' and is not limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of movant." Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. at 392.
Here, Plaintiffs' counsel missed two deadlines. He first failed to file a timely objection to the Bill of Costs, only attempting to file his objections two hours after the hearing had concluded. Pl.'s Mem. at 3. He then filed Plaintiffs' motion to enlarge the time to object to the Bill of Costs eight days from the entry of the Bill of Costs, rather than the seven days required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. See Dckt. Nos. 67 & 71; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). However, notwithstanding these delays, and considering the relevant factors, I will grant Plaintiffs' request for an enlargement of time. Plaintiffs' counsel's delays have not significantly prejudiced Defendants. Further, both delays were relatively brief, each being one day or less beyond the prescribed deadline. Indeed, both delays were shorter than other delays permitted by district courts in this circuit. See, e.g., LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 90, 93 (2d Cir. 1995)(filing for bill of costs permitted nine days after deadline). Plaintiffs' counsel's explanation that car trouble prevented his timely objection may be a reasonable cause for delay. See id. at 90, 93 (tardy bill of costs filing permitted when delay was due to honeymoon). I also see no reason to believe that Plaintiffs' counsel acted in bad faith.
B. Objections to Defendants' Bill of Costs
1. Trial Transcripts
"The cost of any part of the original trial transcript that was necessarily obtained for use in this Court or on appeal is taxable." U.S. Dist. Ct. Rules S. & E.D.N.Y., Civ. R. 54.1(c)(1). However, "[c]onvenience of counsel is not sufficient" to justify the taxing of costs for trial transcripts. Id. Whether or not to award costs "rests within the sound discretion of the district court, " LoSacco, 71 F.3d at 92, and the "burden is on the prevailing party to establish... that the taxation of costs is justified." John G. v. Board of Educ. of Mount Vernon Public Schools, 891 F.Supp. 122, 123 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). When trial transcripts are used in post-trial motions, the Court may find that the transcripts were "necessarily obtained, " and thus taxable. Settlement Funding, LLC v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co., No. 09 Civ. 8685(HB), 2011 WL 2848644 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 18, 2011).
Here, although the trial was not particularly long or complicated, Defendants used the trial transcripts in making a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Thus, they were "necessarily obtained." However, the costs of extra services in addition to the transcripts, such as Real-Time transcription, are not taxable. See Farberware, 2009 WL 5173787 at *6. It appears that the Clerk already deducted $1695.80 in RealTime costs from Defendants' initial request, but did not deduct one invoice reflecting RealTime costs of $384.30. See Bill of Costs, Dckt. No 67; Santos Decl. Ex. A at 10-14. ...