BRIAN LEON, DEBORAH LEON, Plaintiffs, v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant No. 1:22-cv-00937-JRS-MG United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division Filed April 15, 2024 Counsel George W. Pendygraft, George W. Pendygraft, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs. Laurie E. Martin, Molly Broadhead, Riley H. Floyd, Hoover Hull Turner LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant. Sweeney II, James R., United States District Judge Order Taxing Costs *1 This was an employment dispute between a doctor and his former employer. The Court granted summary judgment for Defendant IU Health on all claims, (Order on Summary Judgment, ECF No. 170), and entered judgment, (ECF No. 171). Dr. Leon appealed. (ECF No. 174.) While that appeal is pending, the Court comes to resolve IU Health's Bill of Costs. (ECF No. 172.) See Lorenz v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 1259, 1260 (7th Cir. 1994) (district court retains jurisdiction over costs while merits on appeal); Terket v. Lund, 623 F.2d 29, 34 (7th Cir. 1980) (circuit policy favors expeditious ruling on costs to allow consolidated appeals). Costs are presumably allowed to the prevailing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); Lange v. City of Oconto, 28 F.4th 825, 845 (7th Cir. 2022). The Court's discretion to deny costs is limited: it “must award costs unless it states good reasons for denying them.” Id. The list of qualifying costs appears at 28 U.S.C. § 1920. IU Health's Bill of Costs is a well-supported Form AO 133, seeking $32,682.83 in costs: $402 in filing fees, $142.14 in fees for service, $8,018.90 for transcripts, and $24,119.79 for copies. Dr. Leon balks. He argues that the copy fees are excessive on a per-page basis; that certain e-discovery costs do not count as copying costs; that some image-production fees were not actually incurred; that certain redaction fees are not taxable under § 1920; that IU Health's costs in processing third-party production should not count; that IU Health's discovery responses did not comply with the Federal Rules; that IU Health unnecessarily provided Dr. Leon with documents he requested; that IU Health's costs were unnecessary because the Court cut down the case in its Order on Motion to Dismiss; that service fees for medical records should not count; that production costs for medical records should not count; that it was unnecessary to depose Deborah Leon; that it was unnecessary to depose Dr. Leon's experts; that the deposition of Dr. Leon was unnecessarily overbroad; that it was unnecessary to depose other of Dr. Leon's fact and expert witnesses; that IU Health's costs must be itemized separately for Dr. and Deborah Leon; that IU Health should not be awarded costs because it was insured; and that costs would be a hardship on the Leons. That is a lot of arguments; Dr. Leon faces a big bill. But the bill now due was run up by Dr. Leon's own choices. He brought a “windy” complaint, running to fifty-odd pages and including twenty legal theories. United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003). That is his prerogative; it is not the Court's job to impose discipline in pleading. Id. (“Surplusage can and should be ignored.”). IU Health's Motion to Dismiss tried to trim the fat. The Court denied the motion not because its legal arguments were bad, but because the Federal Rules ask so little of a complaint. (Order, ECF No. 53.) The Court suggested that there would be consequences to Dr. Leon's lack of discipline, (id. at 10), but apparently that suggestion was ignored. Dr. Leon pressed on in discovery with the whole gamut—an expensive proposition—only to be brought up short by a Motion for Summary Judgment to which he was entirely unprepared to respond. (Order 4 (procedural failures), 5–12 (substantive failures), ECF No. 170.) Summary judgment is where the Court first had the procedural firepower to dispose of legal theories that, had Dr. Leon been at all focused, he would long since have discarded. Cf. Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., No. 23-2992 (7th Cir.) (April 8, 2024) (reiterating the distinction between claims and legal theories and mentioning courts’ power to award costs and expenses as a sanction for frivolous theories). *2 “Suits are easy to file and hard to defend,” In re TCI Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 446 (7th Cir. 1985), and even “[s]hallow claims may require costly replies,” Classic Components Supply, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Elecs. Am., Inc., 841 F.2d 163, 165 (7th Cir. 1988). A suit conducted by indiscriminate flailing—like this one has been—creates asymmetric costs. In re TCI, 769 F.2d at 446. Rule 54(d) is one way to “bring costs home to those who create them.” Id. “A moving party that bears its adversary's fees and costs will think twice” about pursuing futile claims, “as it should,” Classic Components, 841 F.2d at 166; the possibility of a cost award should be foreseeable to counsel and so become a “cost of [counsel's own] business,” In re TCI, 769 F.2d at 446. Nor is Rule 54(d) the strongest medicine against “needless costs.” Id. The Court may combat egregious behavior using Rule 11 to award non-movant attorney fees as well. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Court thus rejects all Dr. Leon's arguments, however framed, that IU Health's costs of discovery were “unnecessary.” Dr. Leon made them necessary. Noticed experts will be deposed. So will Plaintiffs. Claims of poor health will be met with inquiries into medical records. Broad discovery requests mean broad responses. More pages requested means more copying fees. None of these costs was unforeseeable or unreasonable in context. Dr. Leon unwisely suggests that his case was really only the core pleading the Court identified in its Order on Motion to Dismiss. That suggestion is belied by the contemporary evidence, (see Statement of Claims, ECF No. 111), and Dr. Leon should count himself lucky—if he had induced IU Health to defend claims or legal theories he knew were groundless, he would face an award of attorney fees as well as costs. The Court suspects the attorney fees are rather larger. Now for the miscellany. There is no reason to itemize costs separately to Dr. Leon and Deborah Leon, nor is there any relevant exception to the usual rule of joint and several liability. The Leons prosecuted the suit together. There is no rule requiring IU Health to disclose business relationships (if any) with service providers. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Dr. Leon gives no support for his suggestion that collusive relationships exist or that IU Health has perjured itself in swearing to costs it has not incurred. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (representations to the Court must be honest, good-faith, and supported or supportable). Ten cents a page is a reasonable rate for in-house copying. Fifty cents a page for outsourced color copies is perforce reasonable as an arms-length market rate. IU Health has carefully separated taxable and non-taxable e-discovery costs to conform with the categories of 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F3d 575, 591 (7th Cir. 2009). Its medical records costs are likewise taxable. Finchum v. Ford Motor Co., 57 F.3d 526, 534 (7th Cir. 1995). Insurance is not relevant to costs. Finally, there is no support for the Leons’ assertion of hardship. IU Health's Bill of Costs, (ECF No. 172), shall be awarded without adjustment. The Clerk is directed to tax costs to Plaintiffs in the amount of $32,682.83 and include the costs in the judgment. SO ORDERED.