Murphy v. Autozone Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------- x
ARTHUR MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
-against-
AUTOZONERS, LLC, d/b/a Autozone Auto Parts,
Store 4778, Lenworth Sewell, and Irzsaud
Jaikeran, a/k/a Mark,
Defendants.
ORDER
22 Civ. 911 (OEM) (VMS)
------------------------------------------------------------- x
Vera M. Scanlon, United States Magistrate Judge:
Presently before the Court is the request of Defendants Autozoners, LLC, doing business
as Autozone Auto Parts, Store 4778; Lenworth Sewell; and Irzsaud Jaikeran, also known as
Mark (“Defendants”), to tax costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(d)(1) and Local Civil Rule 54.1, see generally ECF Nos. 58-58-3, following the entry of
judgment in their favor on their motion for summary judgment, see generally ECF No. 57.
Plaintiff Arthur Murphy (“Plaintiff”) objected, in part, to Defendants’ request. See generally
ECF No. 59. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s objections are sustained in part and
overruled in part, as further discussed below. The Clerk of Court is directed to tax costs
accordingly, and award Defendants $4,789.15 in costs.
Defendants seek for the following costs to be taxed: $4,010.65 for Plaintiff’s deposition,
consisting of $700.00 for court reporters; $2,468.85 for the deposition transcript; $46.80 for
scanned documents; $30.00 for a “Lit Support Package”; $750.00 for a “Remote Depo/Exhibit
Tech” and $15.00 for a “Processing and Production Fee,” ECF No. 59-2 ¶ 9(a); ECF No. 58-3 at
2; $435.00 for Lenworth Sewell’s deposition, consisting entirely of the cost of the deposition
transcript, ECF No. 59-2 ¶ 9(b); ECF No. 58-3 at 3; $492.00 for Irzsaud Jaikeran’s deposition,
Case 1:22-cv-00911-OEM-VMS Document 60 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
consisting entirely of the cost of the deposition transcript, ECF No. 59-2 ¶ 9(c); ECF No. 58-3 at
4; $267.00 for Mukesh Maraj’s deposition, consisting entirely the cost of the deposition
transcript, ECF No. 59-2 ¶ 9(d); ECF No. 58-3 at 5; $366.00 for the deposition of Angel
Callejas, consisting entirely of the cost of the deposition transcript, ECF No. 59-2 ¶ 9(e); ECF
No. 58-3 at 6; $13.50 for copies of Plaintiff’s medical records produced by Advanced Medical
Care PLLC, ECF No. 59-2 ¶ 10(a); ECF No. 58-3 at 7; and $300.00 for the Court-annexed
mediation fee, ECF No. 59-2 ¶ 11; ECF No. 58-3 at 8. Plaintiff objects to taxing of the
following costs: (1) for Plaintiff’s deposition, $700.00 for court reporters, $750.00 for a “Remote
Depo/Exhibit Tech,” $30.00 for a “Lit Support Package,” and $15.00 for a “Processing and
Production Fee”; (2) $267.00 for Mukesh Maraj’s deposition transcript; and (3) $300.00 for the
Court-annexed mediation fee. ECF No. 59 at 3-5.
As to Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff’s objections are sustained. Local Civil Rule
54.1(c)(2) provides that, “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court, the original transcript of a
deposition, plus one copy, is taxable if the deposition was used or received in evidence at the
trial, whether or not it was read in its entirety,” and that “[c]osts for depositions are also taxable
if they were used by the court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive
substantive motion.”1
First, $700.00 for court reporters is taxable. Appearance fees for court reporters are
taxable, given that they constitute “[c]osts for depositions” pursuant to Local Civil Rule
54.1(c)(2), as well as “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily
obtained for use in the case” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Pierre v. City of New York, No.
1 The Court applies the version of the Local Rules in effect at the time of Defendants’ request,
which is identical to the current version of the Local Rules with regard to the quoted language.
Case 1:22-cv-00911-OEM-VMS Document 60 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
5 Civ. 5018 (JFB) (KAM), 2008 WL 1700441, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2008) (stating that,
“[a]ccording to the invoices, the requested costs included appearance fees for the court reporter”
and noting that the clerk taxed costs for the requested amount, which included the court
reporter’s appearance fee (citations omitted)); see also Joseph v. Nichell’s Caribbean Cuisine,
Inc., 950 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1258-59 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (noting that “[n]umerous courts have ruled
that court reporter appearance fees are properly taxable as costs,” given that they are “necessary
for the court reporter to appear and record the testimony, and then to subsequently prepare the
deposition transcript,” and taxing such costs (collecting cases)); Mann v. Acclaim Fin. Servs.,
Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 923, 931 (S.D. Ohio 2004) (taxing costs for a court reporter’s appearance
fee as recoverable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920); Riley v. UOP LLC, 258 F. Supp. 2d 841, 844
(N.D. Ill. 2003) (taxing costs for court reporters’ appearance fees for various depositions
(citations omitted)).2
Second, $750.00 for a “Remote Depo/Exhibit Tech” is not taxable. Defendants did not
provide information as to why this fee should fall under the umbrella provision allowing for
deposition costs leading to the preparation of a deposition transcript. Although, at the time the
deposition was taken, remote recording technology may still have been unfamiliar, Defendants
have not explained why some brief assistance, rather than an entire day of assistance, was
2 Although some other courts applying Local Civil Rule 54.1(c)(2) have concluded that
appearance fees for court reporters are not taxable, see, e.g., In re Mylan N.V. Sec. Litig., No. 16
Civ. 7926 (JPO), 2025 WL 315822, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2025) (reasoning that “the court
reporters’ fee charged for attending depositions [is] . . . not taxable, as courts in this District have
determined that court reporter appearance fees . . . are not taxable” (citation & quotations
omitted)); Perez v. City of New York, 15 Civ. 9385 (JSR), 2019 WL 4400347, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 12, 2019) (reasoning that appearance fees for court reporters are not taxable costs (citations
omitted)), this Court disagrees with this view. Given the necessity of the court reporter’s
appearance at a deposition to prepare a transcript of the deposition, the appearance fee for a court
reporter is reasonably encompassed within Local Civil Rule 54.1(c)(2), which permits the
taxation of costs for deposition transcripts and “[c]osts for depositions.”
Case 1:22-cv-00911-OEM-VMS Document 60 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
necessary. Appearance fees for technical staff are not taxable, at least without further
justification. See In re Mylan N.V. Sec. Litig., No. 16 Civ. 7926 (JPO), 2025 WL 315822, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2025) (reasoning that costs for “Veritext Virtual Participants” are not taxable
(citation & quotations omitted)).
Third, $30.00 for a “Lit Support Package” is not taxable. The description of this cost is
too vague to conclude that it is taxable, and, in response to Plaintiff’s objections, Defendants
failed to respond or to offer any information that would warrant a conclusion to the contrary.
See Mylan, No. 16 Civ. 7926 (JPO), 2025 WL 315822, at *4 (reasoning that the “request for
costs associated with the ‘Litigation Package’ is too vague to sustain an award of costs, as
neither the briefing nor the supplied records explain what the ‘Litigation Package’ is or why it
was necessary to a deposition that was used or to the production of a deposition transcript and
copy,” and that the “[d]efendants make no separate argument as to why [the Litigation Package]
should be taxed” (citation & quotations omitted)).
Fourth, $15.00 for a “Processing and Production Fee” is not taxable. Miscellaneous
processing and production fees, particularly without any explanation from Defendants, are not
taxable. See Rivera v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., No. 16 Civ. 7552 (JGK) (OTW), 2021 WL
1844973, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2021) (noting that “[t]he [c]lerk of [c]ourt has accepted . . .
[the] objections and further reduced the costs – reducing . . . file processing fees” (citation
omitted)), report & recommendation adopted, 16 Civ. 7552 (JGK) (OTW), 2021 WL 1530051
(Apr. 19, 2021); cf. Mylan, No. 16 Civ. 7926 (JPO), 2025 WL 315822, at *4 (permitting the
taxation of “Production/Processing” costs only upon the provision of further explanation that
such costs “were necessary to generating and distributing the transcript in one electronic file,”
Case 1:22-cv-00911-OEM-VMS Document 60 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
which “adequately explain[ed] that the requested costs stemmed from the creation of the
deposition transcripts” (citation & quotations omitted)).
As to Mukesh Maraj’s deposition, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. Again, Local Civil
Rule 54.1(c)(2) provides that, “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court, the original transcript of
a deposition, plus one copy, is taxable if the deposition was used or received in evidence at the
trial, whether or not it was read in its entirety,” and that “[c]osts for depositions are also taxable
if they were used by the court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive
substantive motion.” Although not cited directly in the District Court’s decision on the motion
for summary judgment in this action, see generally ECF No. 56, a portion of Mukesh Maraj’s
deposition transcript was attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Rule 56.1
statement, see generally ECF No. 45-6. “The filing of a deposition transcript necessarily means
a court will use it, since summary judgment may be granted only if the pleadings, deposition,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” such that
“courts in this District have consistently permitted costs to be taxed for deposition transcripts
submitted in connection with a summary judgment [motion] regardless of how or if the court
uses those transcripts in its decision.” Phoenix Light SF DAC v U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 14 Civ.
10116 (VSB), 2023 WL 5498928, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2023) (quotations omitted)
(collecting cases).
As to Court-annexed mediation, Plaintiff’s objection is sustained. $300.00 for the Court-
annexed mediation fee is not a taxable cost under the Local Rules. Bauta v. Greyhound Lines,
Inc., No. 14 Civ. 3725 (RER), 2019 WL 8060181, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. June 17, 2019) (reasoning
that “[m]ediation is not a taxable cost under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 or Local Rule 54.1(c),” and noting
Case 1:22-cv-00911-OEM-VMS Document 60 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
that the “[p]laintiff offers no explanation and cites no case law to support their application for
$5,550.00 in costs for mediation,” thereby denying the request). To allow such a cost would be
contrary to the sprit of the Court-annexed alternative dispute resolution program, which aims to
provide a method other than through litigation to resolve parties’ disputes. The common practice
of splitting the mediator’s fees shows a mutual willingness to share the burden of resolving the
parties’ dispute. That the mediation did not succeed is not a reason to shift this expense to the
party after the parties’ agreed to a mutual division of the fee.
In conclusion, as to the objected-to costs, $1,795.00 in the costs sought are not taxable.
The Clerk of Court is directed to tax costs accordingly, and award Defendants $4,789.15 in costs.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 2, 2026
Vera M. Scanlon
VERA M. SCANLON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:22-cv-00911-OEM-VMS Document 60 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>