*1 Before the Court is the Plaintiff's “Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs” filed on February 28, 2018. See Docket No. 40. The Defendant, John Karr, filed a response in opposition on March 14, 2018. SeeDocket No. 52. The Plaintiff, Oil & Gas Transfer L.L.C. (“OGT”) filed a reply on March 21, 2018. See Docket No. 54. For the reasons set forth below, OGT's motion is granted in part.

On September 13, 2017, OGT moved for summary judgment. SeeDocket No. 20. On October 4, 2017, Karr filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. See Docket No. 29. On February 14, 2018, this Court granted OGT's motion and denied Karr's motion. See Docket No. 38. Judgment was entered in favor of OGT against Karr. See Docket No. 39. On February 28, 2018, OGT filed a motion for attorney fees and costs, seeking $202,357.00 for attorney fees, $3,610.35 for taxablecosts, and $3,085.94 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $209,053.29. See Docket No. 41.

Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows district courts to tax costs in favor of a prevailing party, and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the expenses that may be taxed as costs pursuant to that rule. Stanley v. Cottrell, Inc., 784 F.3d 454, 464 (8th Cir. 2015). 28 U.S.C. § 1920 allows for the taxation of:

28 U.S.C. § 1920.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained Rule 54(d) “represents a codification of the presumption that the prevailing party is entitled to costs.” Greaser v. State, Dept. of Corrections, 145 F.3d 979, 985 (8th Cir. 1998). As the losing party, Karr bears the burden of overcoming the presumption that OGT is entitled to recover all costsallowed by Section 1920. See Stanley v. Cottrell, Inc., 784 F.3d 454, 464 (8th Cir. 2015). However, district courts have significant discretion in awarding costs to the prevailing party. Greaser, at 985; see Brisco-Wade v. Carnahan, 297 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2002) (“Rule 54(d) gives the district court discretion not to award costs to the prevailing party....”). Further, there is no requirement under Rule 54 that a district court provide a detailed review or analysis of every cost item awarded. See Craftsman Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 579 F.3d 894, 896-97 (8th Cir. 2009).

OGT seeks $11.60 in necessary photocopying costs, $2,243.75 in deposition costs, and $1,355.00 in “E-Discovery Litigation Support Vendor necessary charges,”[1] for a total of $3,610.35. See Docket No. 41. Karr argues the depositions were not necessary to this case, rather they were critical to the other pending lawsuit between the parties, Karr v. Oil & Gas Transfer, L.L.C., No. 1:16-cv-53. See Docket No. 52, p. 15.

*2 The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' briefs, the relevant case law, and the entire record. The Court, in the broad exercise of its discretion under Rule 54(d), and after considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding this case, declines to award the full amount of the requested taxable costs. There is no explanation or description of how any of the deposition transcript costs were necessary, and OGT fails to adequately explain why its “E-Discovery Litigation Support Vendor necessary charges” qualify as taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. In the broad exercise of its discretion, the Court will award the total sum of $1,804.45. Pursuant to Local Rule 54.1, the Court directs the Clerk's Office to insert this amount in the judgment.

OGT also requests attorney's fees, pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 35-24-19, in the amount of $202,357. See Docket No. 41. OGT retained Meagher & Geer, based out of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Karr argues N.D.C.C. § 35-24-19 does not apply in this case, and OGT improperly includes attorney's fees and litigation costs relating to the other lawsuit pending between the parties. See Docket No. 52.

Under North Dakota law, the general rule is each party bears its own attorney fees absent statutory or contractual authority. Tillich v. Bruce, 2017 ND 21, ¶ 5, 889 N.W.2d 899. In this case, Karr claimed a lien under N.D.C.C. Ch. 35-24, OGT challenged the enforceability of the lien by filing this suit, and OGT prevailed on its motion for summary judgment. OGT now asserts it is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. § 35-24-19.

Section 35-24-19, N.D.C.C., states, in pertinent part, “In any action brought to enforce a lien prescribed by this chapter, the party for whom judgment is rendered is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney's fee, to be fixed by the court, which must be taxed as costs in the action.” Karr asserts this statute limits recovery to situations in which an “action was brought to enforce a lien,” and the statute does not apply to the case at hand because this was not an action brought to enforce a lien under the statute's plain language. See Docket No. 52. Karr asserts OGT brought this action to quiet title and obtain a declaratory judgment that Karr is not entitled to a lien on the pipeline due to his status as an alleged employee of OGT. Karr asserts its answer to OGT's complaint did not contain a counterclaim seeking to enforce the lien, nor did any of Karr's subsequent motions make an attempt to do so.

In the interpretation of a statute, courts are to look first to the plain language and give each word its ordinary meaning. Environmental Driven Solutions, LLC v. Dunn County, 2017 ND 45, ¶ 12, 890 N.W.2d 841. Courts are not to construe a statute to create an ambiguity or exception when none exists in the statute's plain language. Id. The Court finds that the language of N.D.C.C. § 35-24-19 is not ambiguous. The statute clearly applies only in actions “brought to enforce a lien.” OGT asks this Court to ignore the plain language of the statute and instead twist it to apply to a case in which the enforceability of the lien was in question. However, the plain language of N.D.C.C. § 35-24-19 states that attorney's fees are recoverable “in any action brought to enforce a lien.” OGT brought this suit to quiet title and sought declaratory judgment that Karr was not entitled to a pipeline construction lien; it did not bring the action to enforce Karr's lien. OGT also argues public policy weighs in favor of treating this action challenging the enforceability of a lien as an action in which the prevailing party is entitled to statutory attorney's fees. OGT's argument requests this Court ignore the plain language of the statute, and plays on the Court's sympathies to award OGT attorney's fees in this unusual scenario. This Court is unwilling to rewrite the plain language of the statute. Accordingly, OGT is not entitled to attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. § 35-24-19.

*3 In addition to taxable costs and attorney's fees, OGT seeks $3,085.94 in out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the course of the litigation, including $130.20 in research costs, $2,540.53 in travel, lodging, and dining costs, $31.52 in dining expenses during deposition preparations, $31.44 in courier costs, and $352.25 in process server costs. See Docket No. 41. OGT argues out-of-pocket expenses that are normally charged to a fee-paying client, including fees for online research, delivery services, attorney travel, and private process servers, are generally reimbursable as part of an award of attorney's fees. SeeDocket No. 41, p. 16. Travel expenses for attorneys and other out-of-pocket expenses, which may include expenses that a law firm would normally bill to its client, are more properly characterized as part of an attorney's fees award. See Williams v. ConAgra Poultry Co., 113 Fed. Appx. 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2004); LexMac Energy, L.P. v. Macquarie Bank Limited, No. 4:08-cv-48, 2014 WL 11516245, *9 (D.N.D. Feb. 19, 2014). The Court has determined OGT is not entitled to attorney's fees in this case. The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' briefs, the relevant case law, and the entire record. After considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the case, the Court declines to award the requested out-of-pocket expenses.

The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' briefs, the relevant case law, and the entire record. The Court, in the broad exercise of its discretion under Rule 54(d), finds that OGT has sustained its burden and is entitled to an award of costs and disbursements to OGT in the amount of $1,804.45. Accordingly, OGT's motion for attorney fees and costs (Docket No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART. Pursuant to Local Rule 54.1, the Court directs the Clerk's Office to insert this amount in the judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 18th day of May, 2018.

OGT does not describe what “E-Discovery Litigation Support Vendor necessary charges” are. See Docket No. 41. Rather, OGT simply lumps these charges in with the photocopying charges under “Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials ...” in its Bill of Costs without further description or explanation in its briefing. See Docket Nos. 41 and 42.