Charles Burgett v. The General Store No Two Inc., No. 20-1299 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case. The district court did not abuse its substantial discretion in taxing costs in the matter; the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to deny or reduce taxable costs on account of plaintiff's alleged indigency, particularly given his willful abuse of the discovery process that prejudicially increased defendants' litigation costs. [ October 21, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1299 ___________________________ Charles L. Burgett lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. The General Store No Two Inc., et al. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: October 8, 2020 Filed: October 22, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Charles Burgett brought this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against multiple defendants. The district court1 dismissed all claims with prejudice as a sanction for 1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Burgett’s willful discovery violations, explaining in a lengthy Order that Burgett’s willful, bad faith defiance of “at least four Court orders” had prejudiced defendants. This court affirmed. Burgett v. Gen. Store No Two Inc., 727 Fed. Appx. 898, 900 (8th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2638 (2019). Burgett now appeals the court’s order taxing costs in favor of defendants in the total amount of $6,9875.23. After careful review of the entire record, we conclude the court did not abuse its substantial discretion in taxing costs and therefore affirm. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., 853 F.3d 414, 431 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review). Defendants were prevailing parties presumptively entitled to recover costs properly taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. A district court has discretion to tax the costs of printed and electronic transcripts of the same deposition, provided both were “necessarily obtained” for use in the case. See Stanley v. Cottrell, Inc., 784 F.3d 454, 465-67 (8th Cir. 2015); Zotos v. Lindbergh Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 356, 363 (8th Cir. 1997). Discovery-related copying is taxable, particularly in a case where the losing party’s discovery abuses were determinative. See Op. Eng’rs Local #49 Health & Welfare Fund v. Charps Welding & Fab., Inc., 950 F.3d 510, 527 (8th Cir. 2020). Defendants submitted evidence that all costs taxed were not duplicative and were in fact paid. The court did not abuse its discretion in declining to deny or reduce taxable costs on account of Burgett’s alleged indigency, particularly given his willful abuse of the discovery process that prejudicially increased defendants’ litigation costs. See Smith v. Tenet Healthsystem SL, Inc., 436 F.3d 879, 889 (8th Cir. 2006). The district court’s text only order entered January 13, 2020 is affirmed. Appellant’s motion to strike the brief of appellee The General Store No Two Inc. is denied. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
