Ellipsat, Inc.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
ELLIPSO, INC.,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 09-00148
(Chapter 11)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE BILL OF COSTS
SUBMITTED BY ROBERT PATTERSON PURSUANT TO THE
ORDER GRANTING HIS MOTION TO HOLD DAVID CASTIEL
IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THIS COURT'S ORDERS OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2009, AND OCTOBER 7, 2009
This court’s order (Dkt. No. 482) holding David Castiel in
contempt directed that Robert Patterson recover his taxable
costs. 	Patterson has filed a bill of costs.
Castiel objects that the bill of costs was filed late, but
Castiel moved for reconsideration within the time-limit of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59, with the consequence that the deadline for
Patterson to file his bill of costs would begin to run anew upon
disposition of the motion to reconsider. 	Patterson filed the
bill of costs before the court disposed of the motion to
reconsider, and thus the bill of costs was timely.
Nevertheless, the bill of costs must be disallowed.
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: March 05, 2010.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 09-00148 Doc 784 Filed 03/05/10 Entered 03/05/10 16:56:09 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
Patterson did not verify the bill of costs as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1924. 	That defect can be cured, and I will grant
Patterson leave to file an amended bill of costs within 21 days
after entry of this order.
Some of the costs Patterson claimed ought not to have been
claimed. 	Costs are awarded under the authority of Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 54(d) and within the constraints of 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which
"define[s] the full extent of a federal court's power to shift
litigation costs absent express statutory authority to go
further." 	W. Va. Univ. Hosps. 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. 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)).
Allowable costs are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which
provides:
A Judge or clerk of any court of the United States may
tax as costs the following:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part
of the stenographic transcript necessarily
obtained for use in the case;
Case 09-00148 Doc 784 Filed 03/05/10 Entered 03/05/10 16:56:09 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and
witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers
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.
A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon
allowance, included in the judgment or decree.
Such costs do not include travel, parking, or postage costs, and
thus the bill of costs will be denied with respect to those
items. 	See Zdunek, 100 F.R.D. at 692; Postow v. Oriental Bldg.
Ass'n, 455 F. Supp. 781, 792 (D.D.C. 1978); Richerson v. Jones,
506 F. Supp. 1259, 1267 (E.D. Pa. 1981). 	The courts reason that
these out-of-pocket costs "are general expenses incurred during
the course of every lawsuit and they are not taxable costs."
Zdunek, 100 F.R.D. at 692.
The bill of costs includes $8.00 for “[p]rinting and copies”
and $12.60 for “Printing, copies, and postage for Bill of Costs.”
As stated in Corsair Asset Management, Inc. v. Moskovitz, 142
F.R.D. 347, 352 (N.D. Ga. 1992), a "party seeking the recovery of
[copying] costs must show that the copies were necessary and
provided either to the court or the opposing party." 	Fees for
copying papers generally will not be allowed "for the
convenience, preparation, research, or records of counsel." See
Fressell v. AT&T Techs., 103 F.R.D. 111, 115 (N.D. Ga. 1984).
Use of an admittedly imprecise total of copies does not suffice,
Case 09-00148 Doc 784 Filed 03/05/10 Entered 03/05/10 16:56:09 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4	O:\TEEL\Judge Temp Docs\Ellipso, Inc. - Order Re Patterson Bill of Costs on Contempt Mtn.wpd
Robertson v. McCloskey, 121 F.R.D. 131, 134 (D.D.C. 1988), nor,
it follows, will an estimate by the court. 	A bill of costs ought
to provide details such as which papers were copied, the number
of copies, the cost per page, and why they were copied (for
example, whether these were merely copies for the records of
Patterson). 	Without such detail, a court is unable to determine
whether the costs were necessary or reasonable, and thus is
unable to approve the copying fees. 	See id.; Ortega v. City of
Kansas City, 659 F. Supp. 1201, 1218-19 (D. Kan. 1987); Fressell,
103 F.R.D. at 115. 	However, Patterson will be allowed to provide
more detailed information on his copying costs in any amended
bill of costs he timely files.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the bill of costs filed by Robert Patterson is
disallowed, but Robert Patterson is granted leave within 21 days
after entry of this order to file an amended bill of costs.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to:
Debtor’s attorney; Office of U.S. Trustee; and:
Robert Patterson
9330 Harts Mill Rd.
Warrenton, VA 20186
c/o J. Mann
David Castiel
2831 44th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20007
Case 09-00148 Doc 784 Filed 03/05/10 Entered 03/05/10 16:56:09 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4