Debra Kent v. Vicksburg Healthcare, L.L.C. , 534 F. App'x 229 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 12-60432       Document: 00512196554         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/03/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    April 3, 2013
    No. 12-60432
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    DEBRA L. KENT,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    VICKSBURG HEALTHCARE, L.L.C., doing business as River Region
    Medical Center; DARLENE WHITE, Individually and in her Official
    Capacity,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    U.S.D.C. No. 5:10-cv-195
    Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Plaintiff-Appellant, Debra Kent appeals the district court’s grant of
    summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees on her federal claims for racial
    discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and her
    Mississippi state law claims for wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of
    emotional distress (“IIED”). Kent also appeals the district court’s determination
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 12-60432    Document: 00512196554     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/03/2013
    No. 12-60432
    that Defendant-Appellee, Darlene White was not a proper defendant with
    respect to Kent’s Title VII claims.
    Additionally, Kent appeals the district court’s grant of a protective order
    covering written reports from two state-sanctioned inspections of Defendant-
    Appellee, Vicksburg Healthcare’s laboratory facilities. Finally, Kent appeals the
    district court’s taxation to her of costs for the transcripts and electronic
    recordings of various depositions of the main actors in this litigation.
    We AFFIRM the final judgment of the district court in full.
    A.    Racial Discrimination and Retaliation Claims
    For the reasons amply provided by the district court in its memorandum
    opinion, Kent did not make out a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation
    sufficient to withstand summary judgment on her Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981
    claims. See Kent v. Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC, No. 5:10-cv-195, 
    2012 WL 1556511
    , at *6-14 (S.D.Miss. Apr. 30, 2012) (Bramlette, J.). Moreover, the
    district court correctly stated that White was not a proper Title VII defendant.
    
    Id. at *6 n.18.
    B.    Wrongful Discharge and IIED Claims
    We similarly agree with the reasons provided by the district court that
    Kent cannot sustain her state law claims for wrongful discharge and IIED. See
    
    id. at *14-17. C.
       Issue Concerning the Protective Order
    As for Kent’s appeal concerning the protective order, it is longstanding
    precedent in this Circuit that:       “A trial court enjoys wide discretion in
    determining the scope and effect of discovery. It is, in fact, unusual to find an
    abuse of discretion in discovery matters.” Sanders v. Shell Oil Co., 
    678 F.2d 614
    ,
    618 (5th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). Here, Kent argues, in essence, that the
    two reports are relevant because both she and White worked in laboratory
    management for Vicksburg Healthcare. The district court determined that,
    2
    Case: 12-60432     Document: 00512196554     Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/03/2013
    No. 12-60432
    without more, this was insufficient reason for the reports to be discoverable. The
    district court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion.
    D.       Taxation of Costs Issue
    As for the taxation of costs issue, “costs—other than attorney’s
    fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “The
    trial court has broad discretionary powers in taxing costs. . . . While [Rule
    54(d)(1)] does not prevent a trial court from requiring a prevailing party to bear
    its own costs, the language of the rule reasonably bears the intendment that the
    prevailing party is prima facie entitled to costs.” Walters v. Roadway Express,
    Inc., 
    557 F.2d 521
    , 526 (5th Cir. 1977) (citations and internal quotation marks
    omitted). “[I]t is incumbent on the losing party to overcome that presumption.”
    
    Id. (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted).
    Here, Kent challenges the necessity of various depositions taken by
    Defendants-Appellees of core actors in this litigation.       The district court
    determined that these depositions were necessary for taxation of costs purposes.
    We have previously stated that: “Whether a deposition or copy was necessarily
    obtained for use in [a] case is a factual determination to be made by the district
    court.    We accord the district court great latitude in this determination.”
    Fogleman v. ARAMCO, 
    920 F.2d 278
    , 285-86 (5th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
    Kent has provided little reason for us to disrupt this latitude. Accordingly, Kent
    cannot overcome the presumption that Defendants-Appellees are entitled to
    costs for the depositions at issue.
    E.       Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the final judgment of the district
    court in full.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-60432

Citation Numbers: 534 F. App'x 229

Judges: Clement, King, Per Curiam, Stewart

Filed Date: 4/3/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023