DEGRAW

v.

GUALTIERI

This cause comes before the Court on the Proposed Bill of Costs (Dkt. 122) filed by Defendants Bob Gualtieri and Gregory Goepfert, and Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 123). After careful review and consideration, the Court finds the proposed costs taxable. Recoverable Costs Costs other than attorney’s fees “should be allowed to the prevailing party” unless a federal statute, the federal rules, or court order provides otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The prevailing party may recover the costs of “making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Copies attributable to discovery are recoverable under § 1920(4). EEOC v. W & O, Inc., 213 F. 3d 600, 623 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing Desisto College, Inc. v. Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, 718 F. Supp. 906, 913 (M.D. Fla. 1989), but declining to follow Desisto on other grounds). To determine whether the copies were necessarily obtained for use in the case, the standard is whether the prevailing party could have “reasonably believed” that it was necessary to copy the documents at the time of copying. Watson v. Lake Cnty., 492 F. App’x 991, 997 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing W & O, Inc., 213 F. 3d at 623). The costs of copies made for the convenience of counsel, however, are not allowed. Id. Photocopying/Printing Costs Defendants request the costs of copying 25,526 pages at $0.15 per page for a total of $3,828.90. Dkt. 122-1 at ¶¶ 12–26; Dkt. 122-6. Of the total, Plaintiff seeks a reduction for 16,416 pages copied in the amount of $2,462.20.1 Plaintiff challenges¹) the copying of Defendants’ document production to Plaintiff of 8,119 pages of the total 12,688, 2) the additional, second copying of the remaining 4,569 pages containing redactions of privileged and confidential information, and 3) the printing of all pleadings and court orders (3,728 pages) from CM/ECF.2 Discovery The first two categories cover documents attributable to discovery. Plaintiff objects to the need for Defendants to have copied all 12,688 pages of their

Defendants aver copying the 12,688 pages of responsive documents was necessary because the documents first had to be physically located from various files. Dkt. 122-1 at ¶¶ 13, 14. Each page had to then be reviewed for potential claims of privilege and confidentiality before being produced. Id. at ¶ 14.

Defendants, primarily by hand, redacted this type of information, which was found in 4,569 pages, and copied the marked pages to include in the production set which was Bates-stamped. Id. at ¶¶ 15, 16, 18.

Having been formally requested by Plaintiff, these documents were attributable to discovery. W & O, Inc., 213 F. 3d at 623; 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Defendants have fully explained the process of their document search and method of review for redactable information before production. The Court finds

Defendants, as the prevailing parties, have met their burden. With respect to Plaintiff’s objection to the “second” copying of the 4,569 pages containing the redactions, the Court finds the Defendant’s explanation sufficiently detailed and plausible to warrant taxation. These costs will not be reduced. Pleadings/Court orders “Copies of pleadings” are generally recoverable. Desisto College, 718 F. Supp. at 913. Although extra copies of filed pleadings are considered obtained for the convenience of counsel, the first copy made is not. /d. Plaintiff cites no authority to the contrary. The Court finds the 3,728 pages of pleadings and court orders taxable. It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:¹) Costs are awarded in favor of Defendants in the total amount of $15,195.56. 2) The Courtroom Deputy Clerk is directed to enter a Bill of Costs reflecting the amounts shown on the proposed Bill of Costs at docket 122. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on October 21, 2020. me,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record