MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is a Bill of Costs (Doc. 69) filed by Defendant. As the prevailing party, Defendant requests that she be awarded costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Defendant asks for costs in the amount of $4,636.65 for fees for copying, a video recording of Plaintiff's deposition, and other deposition transcripts taken in preparation for this case. (Doc. 69). Plaintiff has filed an objection to Defendant's motion, (Docs. 73) objecting to the expense of the video deposition.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) provides that "costs-other than attorney's fees- should be allowed to the prevailing party." In the Seventh Circuit, "there is a heavy presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party." Majeske v. City of Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 824 (7th Cir. 2000). "The presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party is difficult to overcome, and the district court's discretion is narrowly defined- the court must award costs unless it states good reasons for denying them." Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Industries Company, Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997). However, the Seventh Circuit recognizes the court may, in its discretion, deny costs where the losing party is indigent. Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 635 (7th Cir. 2006). The burden is on the losing party to show that they are incapable of paying costs. Id.

Costs do not include all litigation expenses. Rather, costs are particular statutorily-defined categories of incurred charges worthy of reimbursement. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 445, 107 S.Ct. 2494, 96 L.Ed.2d 385 (1987); Hairline Creations, Inc. v. Kefalas, 664 F.2d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1920 sets forth the categories of expenses which properly may be taxed, including:

28 U.S.C. § 1920.

28 U.S.C. § 1821 spells out the precise amounts recoverable by witnesses ($40 per day for each day's attendance fees plus certain travel expenses). Expenses not on the statutory list must be borne by the party incurring them. Collins v. Gorman, 96 F.3d 1057, 1057 (7th Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff's sole remaining argument1is that the video taping of Plaintiff's deposition was duplicative of the stenographic record and that Plaintiff should not have to incur this cost. Plaintiff also points out that Defendant did not consult Plaintiff prior to incurring this expense. Plaintiff has not cited any case law for the proposition that such "pre-approval" is necessary, and the Court does not believe that such a requirement would create a workable system. And Seventh Circuit precedent specifically allows the taxing of costs for both the video and stenographic recording of depositions necessarily obtained for the case. Little v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., 514 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 2008). Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff's cognitive abilities, particularly his memory, were at issue in this case, and that the decision to preserve Plaintiff's deposition for possible use at trial was reasonably necessary. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff's request for a reduction.

The Court finds that Plaintiff's Objection is unfounded and DENIES the objection. (Doc. 73). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to tax of total of $4,636.65 against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.