*1 The Court grants the Union Defendants' Bill of Costs [370] and grants in part and denies in part the State Defendants' Bill of Costs [376]. The Court orders Susan Tomas to pay the Union Defendants' expenses in the amount of $5,581.77 as set forth in the Union Defendants' Bill of Costs [370] and to pay the State Defendants' expenses in the amount of $4,868.82 as set forth as the costs for transcripts and copies in the State Defendants' Bill of Costs [376].

STATEMENT

The Court granted the State of Illinois Defendants' (Illinois Department of Employment Security, James Johnson, Diann Ware, and Lioubov Voityna (the “State Defendants”)) and the Union Defendants' (AFSCME Local 1006, Patricia Ousley, Rudeley Herron, and Mark Fisher (the “Union Defendants”)) motions for summary judgment, which the Seventh Circuit affirmed. (Dkt. 368, 398.) The State Defendants and Union Defendants have filed Bill of Costs for expenses related to this litigation. (Dkt. 370, 376.) Plaintiff Susan Tomas objects to both Bill of Costs, asserting that the Court should exercise its discretion and deny all costs to the prevailing parties.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “costs ... should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The Seventh Circuit has held that costs “must be awarded to a prevailing party unless one of the recognized situations warranting a denial of costs is present.” Mother & Father v. Cassidy, 338 F.3d 704, 708, 710 (7th Cir. 2003) (noting that denial is warranted only in situations involving misconduct of the party seeking costs or where the losing party is indigent). Recoverable costs include: (1) fees of the clerk and marshal, (2) fees for transcripts, (3) witness fees and expenses, (4) fees for copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case, (5) docket fees, and (6) compensation for court-appointed experts and interpreters. See Republic Tobacco Co. v. N. Atl. Trading Co., Inc., 481 F.3d 442, 447 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920). Although a district court has discretion when awarding costs, the “discretion is narrowly confined because of the strong presumption created by Rule 54 that the prevailing party will recover costs.” Graham v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 247 F. App'x 26, 31 (7th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Union Defendants request costs in the amount of $5,037.55 for transcripts and $544.22 for printing. These costs are taxable expenses contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1920, Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 945–46 (7th Cir. 1997), and the Court orders Tomas to pay the Union Defendants' expenses in the amount of $5,581.77.

The State Defendants request costs in the amount of $4,269.41 for transcripts, $599.41 for copies, and $13,172.81 for electronically stored information data hosting. The submitted costs for transcripts and copies are contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1920, Weeks, 126 F.3d at 945–46, so the Court grants $4,868.82 in costs.

Whether data hosting costs are recoverable, however, is an open question. Although the Seventh Circuit held that “costs ... for converting computer data into a readable format in response to plaintiffs' discovery requests” are recoverable, Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 591 (7th Cir. 2009), the Seventh Circuit has not yet provided guidance related to which electronically stored information services are taxable. Courts in the Seventh Circuit consistently find that electronic data hosting is not a recoverable cost under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See, e.g., Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int'l Sec. Exch., LLC, No. 07 CV 623, 2014 WL 125937, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2014) (Lefkow, J.); Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 07-CV-0781-SCW, 2012 WL 4936598, at *7 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2012); Massuda v. Panda Express, Inc., No. 12 CV 9683, 2014 WL 148723, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 15, 2014) (Kim, M.J.). Further, the State Defendants do not contend that these data hosting costs are fees for making copies or for some other category that the Seventh Circuit has held is a recoverable category of costs; instead, the State Defendants list the hosting fees as “other costs.” This Court finds the reasoning of its sister courts persuasive and holds that data hosting is not a recoverable cost. The Court, therefore, denies the State Defendants' request for $13,172.81 for data hosting costs.

*2 Thus, the Court grants the Union Defendants' Bill of Costs [370] and grants in part and denies in part the State Defendants' Bill of Costs [376]. The Court orders Susan Tomas to pay the Union Defendants' expenses in the amount of $5,581.77 as set forth in the Union Defendants' Bill of Costs [370] and to pay the State Defendants' expenses in the amount of $4,868.82 as set forth as the costs for transcripts and copies in the State Defendants' Bill of Costs [376].

IT IS SO ORDERED.