Rufus Stancil

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
RUFUS STANCIL, JR.,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 01-02220
(Chapter 7)
OPINION AND ORDER RE
BILL OF COSTS OF VARIOUS TENANTS OF 2922 SHERMAN AVENUE
The tenants whose claims were the subject of the court's
earlier opinion have filed a Bill of Costs. Preliminarily, the
court notes that a court may only tax costs as authorized by
statute. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S.
437, 445 (1987) (rejecting claim that “a federal court is
empowered to exceed the limitations explicitly set out in [28
U.S.C.] §§ 1920 and 1821 without plain evidence of congressional
intent to supersede those sections”); see also W. Va. Univ.
Hospitals v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 86 (1991). In keeping with the
American rule such, costs are awarded “sparingly” and should be
“given careful scrutiny.” Farmer v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 379 U.S.
227, 235 (1964). However, “it is clear in this Circuit that, as
long as the costs of items for which a party seeks reimbursement
are statutorily authorized, there is a strong presumption in
favor of an assessment against the losing party.” Zdunek v.
The order below is hereby signed.
Signed: January 12, 2006.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 01-02220 Doc 679 Filed 01/13/06 Entered 01/13/06 13:33:25 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 6

2
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 100 F.R.D. 689, 692 (D.D.C.
1983) (citing Sun Ship, Inc. v. Lehman, 655 F.2d 1311 (D.C. Cir.
1981)).
The tenants’ reliance on Cooper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors
Co., 684 F.2d 1087 (5th Cir. 1982), which permitted other
expenditures beyond those specified by statute to be taxed as
costs “in exceptional cases presenting unusual equitable
considerations in order to achieve justice,” id. at 1099, is
woefully misplaced. Cooper Liquor was expressly overruled on
this point by the Fifth Circuit in Int’l Woodworkers of Am. v.
Champion Int’l Corp., 790 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc),
and J.T. Gibbons, Inc. v. Crawford Fitting Co., 790 F.2d 1193
(5th Cir. 1986) (en banc). See Int’l Woodworkers, 790 F.2d at
1175-76; J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 790 F.2d at 1194. Upon review of
those decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed as to this precise
issue in Crawford Fitting. 482 U.S. at 445. With these
principles in mind, the court turns to the four types of costs
raised by the tenants in their Bill of Costs.
First, the Memorandum accompanying the Bill of Costs
erroneously states:
[T]he attached affidavit delineates copying
costs incurred by the Legal Aid Society of
the District of Columbia in preparation of
the case, and deposition transcript costs
incurred by Steptoe & Johnson for the
deposition of Rufus Stancil that was utilized
in the court proceedings. The costs
represent sparing requests for costs, as the
tenants incurred unforeseen costs of
litigation that are not requested in the Bill
of Cost[s] like travel expenses, loss of
Case 01-02220 Doc 679 Filed 01/13/06 Entered 01/13/06 13:33:25 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 6

3
wages, and lunch expenses while awaiting
testimony.
(Memo. at 11) (emphasis added). Contrary to this statement in
the Memorandum, included in the Bill of Costs are “travel costs
associated with litigation” of $99.40. As the Memorandum
recognized, such costs are not taxable and will be disallowed.
Second, the Bill of Costs includes another item not
mentioned in the Memorandum; namely, $60.50 in postage costs,
which are not taxable and thus will not be allowed.
Third, the costs include copies of papers that were not
“necessarily obtained for use in the case.” “Necessarily
obtained” does not mean that the materials and services obtained
“added to the convenience of counsel ... and perhaps ... have
made the task of the trial judges easier.” Farmer, 379 U.S. at
235. Merely making copies incident to the case is not enough.
See Sun Ship, Inc., 655 F.2d at 1318 nn. 48-49; Fressell v. AT&T
Technologies, Inc., 103 F.R.D. 111, 116 (N.D. Ga. 1984) (“[t]his
court will only allow photocopying charges that were necessary
for discovery and for trial presentation and will not allow
photocopying charges for the convenience, preparation, research,
or records of counsel”); SCA Services, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, 599
F.2d 178, 181 (7th Cir. 1979) (“[T]he practicalities of preparing
a case for trial often require that the attorneys have frequent
and ready access to the depositions, and that they be able to
mark annotations and cross-references on the pages.”). The Bill
of Costs here shows no necessity for “use in the case” for some
of the photocopies, both in the litigation here and in the
Case 01-02220 Doc 679 Filed 01/13/06 Entered 01/13/06 13:33:25 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 6

4
litigation in the Superior Court, the most obvious example being
the copies of the court’s opinion that were sent to the tenants.
Without more justification, the court is unable to determine in
many instances that the copying costs were necessary for use in
the case or reasonable, and the court is thus unable to approve
the copying fees in those instances at this time. See Robertson
v. McCloskey, 121 F.R.D. 131, 134 (D.D.C. 1988); Ortega v. City
of Kansas City, 659 F. Supp. 1201, 1218-19 (D. Kan. 1987);
Fressell, 103 F.R.D. at 115. Counsel should file an amended bill
of costs for photocopying that is limited to those photocopies
that were necessarily obtained for use in the case, and as to
those for which the necessity is not obvious, state why they were
necessary.
Fourth, the costs include costs incurred in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia in prepetition litigation of
the claims. These are allowable as part of the tenants’ claims
(because they were entitled to recover costs in the Superior
Court and such costs make up part of their claim for damages
incurred prepetition). However, such costs are to be paid as
part of the allowed claim in the case, not as a separate
postpetition claim that is to be collected from the debtor as
opposed to the bankruptcy estate. The debtor has not objected to
the pursuit via a bill of costs of such additional damages as
part of the tenants’ prepetition claims. The order allowing the
tenants’ claims was a non-final claim, and it can be amended to
allow as additional damages the costs incurred prepetition.
Case 01-02220 Doc 679 Filed 01/13/06 Entered 01/13/06 13:33:25 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 6

5
Although it may not matter (because prepetition claims will be
paid in full from the estate), the prepetition costs allowed
ought to be treated as part of the allowed prepetition claims,
not as postpetition costs. It is thus
ORDERED that within 28 days after entry of this order,
counsel for the tenants shall submit an amended Bill of Costs
addressing the issue of photocopies together with:
• a proposed supplemental order regarding the additional
amounts owed each tenant as an allowed prepetition
claim for costs incurred prepetition in the Superior
Court; and
• a separate proposed order regarding postpetition costs
owed each tenant
in conformity with this Opinion and Order. It is further
ORDERED that the debtor may object to the amended Bill of
Costs and to the proposed orders submitted within 14 days of
their filing.
[Signed and dated above.]
Case 01-02220 Doc 679 Filed 01/13/06 Entered 01/13/06 13:33:25 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 6

6	O:\Andrew Fausett Temp Docs\opinion_bill of costs_Stancil.wpd
Copies to:
Edward M. Kimmel
[Counsel for Debtor]
Joshua R. Taylor
[Co-Counsel for the Tenants]
Charles A. Malloy
[Co-Counsel for the Association]
Daniel A. Katz
[Co-Counsel for the Association]
Adrienne DerVartanian
Julie L. Becker
Jennifer L. Berger
[Co-Counsel for the Tenants]
Wendell W. Webster
[Chapter 7 Trustee]
Office of the United States Trustee
Case 01-02220 Doc 679 Filed 01/13/06 Entered 01/13/06 13:33:25 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 6