ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR COSTS

JULIE RICHARDS JOHNSTON, District Judge.

This matter is before the clerk on the supplemental application for costs filed by defendant Diana Painter [DE-103] and defendant Philip D. Matthews' motion for clarification [DE-104]. Both motions follow the clerk's May 16, 2016, Order [DE-102], which allowed the moving defendants' applications for costs in part.

With regard to defendant Painter, the clerk disallowed her application in part, without prejudice to supplement the request within 14 days with additional information supporting her request for costs for plaintiff's deposition transcript. Painter has timely supplemented her request, and the clerk finds that Painter is entitled to $924.60 in costs for plaintiff's deposition transcript.1

With regard to defendant Matthews' motion for clarification, he contends that the clerk made a clerical error in the May 16, 2016, Order [DE-102] by not including the costs for the video deposition of plaintiff. Defendant Matthews is correct. The clerk finds that defendant Matthews is entitled to an award of costs in the amount of $1,016.57 for the video deposition of plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant Diane Painter's supplemental application for costs [DE-103] is ALLOWED and she is awarded costs in the amount of $925.00 for deposition transcripts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). These costs are taxed against plaintiff and shall be included in the judgment.

Defendant Philip D. Matthews's motion for clarification [DE-104] is ALLOWED, and he is awarded costs in the amount of $1,016.57 for the video deposition of plaintiff. These cots are taxed against plaintiff and shall be included in the judgment.

SO ORDERED.