Sedwick v. McDonald

United States District Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JACQUELINE CAMILLE SEDWICK §
v. ; CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-2321-S-BT
DENIS RICHARD MCDONOUGH, ;
Secretary, Department of Veterans §
Affairs §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in
this case. Objections were filed. The Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the
remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error,
the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge.
In support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant attached the deposition
transcripts of Plaintiff, Gregory Guillermo, and Kimberly Coleman-Prier. See Def.’s Mot. for
Summ. J. App. at 644-82 [ECF No. 93-5], 736-67 [ECF No. 93-6], 990-1093 [ECF Nos. 93-10
and 93-11]. Because the Court finds that the deposition transcripts were necessarily obtained for
use in the case, Defendant may recover the costs associated with the original deposition transcripts
for those deponents. See Leal v. Magic Touch Up, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-662-0, 2019 WL 162885, at
*2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2019) (Ramirez, J.) (“It is generally recognized that the basic costs of an
original deposition transcript and one copy are taxable against the non-prevailing party.”) (quoting
Favata v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, LP, No. 2:12-CV-82, 2014 WL 5822781, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 10,
2014)); Woodberry v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, No. 3:14-CV-3980, 2017 WL 1408826, at *1-2
Case 3:22-cv-02321-S-BT Document 138 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

(N.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) (Lindsay, J.) (stating that failure to cite to or rely on deposition transcript
in motion for summary judgment did “not end the inquiry” regarding taxable costs under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920); see also Fogleman vy. ARAMCO, 920 F.2d 278, 285 (Sth Cir. 1991) (“If, at the time it was
taken, a deposition could reasonably be expected to be used for trial preparation, rather than merely
for discovery, it may be included in the costs of the prevailing party.”).
Accordingly, Defendant’s Bill of Costs [ECF No. 119] is GRANTED IN PART, and
Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay Defendant $4,293.28.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED January 5, 2026.
No Qe
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:22-cv-02321-S-BT Document 138 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>