United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Allen Beaulieu, individually and d/b/a Allen Beaulieu Photography, Plaintiff,
Clint Stockwell, an individual; Studio 1124, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Thomas Martin Crouse, an individual; Charles Willard “Chuck” Sanvik, an individual, and Does 3 through 7, Defendants.
Russell M. Spence, Jr., Esq., Parker Daniels Kibort LLC,
counsel for Plaintiff.
Michael L. Puklich, Esq., Neaton & Puklich, P.L.L.P.,
counsel for Defendants Clint Stockwell and Studio 1124, LLC.
F. Fox, Esq., Lauren Shoeberl, Esq., & Lewis A. Remele,
Jr., Esq., Bassford Remele, counsel for Defendant Charles
Wood, Esq., Outfront MN, counsel for Defendant Thomas Martin
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DONOVAN W. FRANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Allen Beaulieu's
(“Beaulieu”) Objection to Bill of Costs. (Doc.
Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and
dismissed all of Beaulieu's claims against them with
prejudice. (Doc. Nos. 220, 221, 232.) Thereafter, Defendant
Charles Willard “Chuck” Sanvik
(“Sanvik”) filed a Bill of Costs (“Bill of
Costs”) with the clerk, seeking payment of deposition
fees used to defend against Plaintiff's claims totaling
$7, 723.95. (Doc. No. 235.) The clerk subsequently filed a
cost judgment of $7573.15 in favor of Sanvik. (Doc. No. 240.)
28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d), the Court has
“substantial discretion” in awarding costs to a
prevailing party. Zotos v. Lindbergh, 121 F.3d 356,
363 (8th Cir. 1997). Unless a federal statute, rules, or
court other provides otherwise, “costs-other than
attorney's fees-should be allowed to the prevailing
party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). Beaulieu has the burden
to show that the cost judgement “is inequitable under
the circumstances.” Concord Board Corp. v.
Brunswick Corp., 309 F.3d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 2002)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
objects to all items contained in the Bill of Costs because
he is indigent, and because Sanvik has more resources.
Beaulieu argues that his only regular and consistent income
is social security retirement benefits of $780.00 per month.
While Beaulieu has attached documentation of his social
security benefits (Doc. No. 238, Ex. 1), the record also
reflects that he recently published a book (Doc. No. 124, Ex.
G) and that he attributes substantial monetary value to his
collection of Prince photographs (Doc. No. 47 ¶¶
23-24.) The Court finds that Beaulieu has failed to provide
sufficient documentation ...