UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v. Veoh Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 601

UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v. Veoh Networks, Inc. et al

Doc. 601

1 IRELL & MANELLA LLP Steven A. Marenberg (101033) ([e-mail]) 2 Brian D. Ledahl (186579) ([e-mail]) Carter R. Batsell (254396) ([e-mail]) 3 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 4 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION Plaintiffs, vs. Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV-07-05744 AHM (AJWx) UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S APPLICATION TO CLERK TO TAX CERTAIN COSTS Date: December 10, 2009 Time: 11:00 AM Ctrm: N/A

11 UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al.,

14 VEOH NETWORKS, INC.,

UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S APPLICATION TO CLERK TO TAX CERTAIN COSTS 2161840

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2

I.

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Local Rule 54-7, Plaintiffs UMG Recordings, Inc., et al.

3 ("UMG") object to Veoh Networks, Inc.'s ("Veoh") Application to the Clerk to Tax 4 Certain Costs. Veoh may only recover those costs provided under Rule 54(d) and 5 the applicable local rules.1 It cannot recover all charges it incurred in this litigation. 6 But Veoh's Bill of Costs improperly includes costs not allowed by the governing 7 rules. The Clerk should reject those costs, totaling $39,293.09. 8 9 II. OBJECTIONS Veoh seeks costs either not allowed by the local rules, or not adequately

10 supported by the accompanying evidence. If the Clerk is inclined to grant any of 11 Veoh's costs, it should adjust the proper amount accordingly. 12 1. Veoh seeks costs for videotaped depositions, which are not allowed "unless 13 otherwise ordered by the Court." L.R. 54-4.6(a)-(b); see, e.g., Application Ex. A at 14 19 ("Video reporting, etc. for Harvey Geller deposition"); id. at Ex. C at 50 ("Video 15 ­ Initial fee"). The Court has not entered any such order, and thus these costs, 16 totaling $15,034.25, are inappropriate and should be rejected. 17 2. Veoh seeks costs for "rough" transcripts, which are not allowed under the 18 Local Rules. L.R. 54-4.6(a) ("[t]he costs of the original and one copy of the 19 transcription"); see, e.g., Application Ex. C at 49 ("Transcript ­ Rough ASCII"). 20 The Clerk should reduce Veoh's costs by $5,251.00, the amount claimed for these 21 "rough" transcripts. 22 3. Veoh may only seek costs for "non-expedited transcripts." L.R. 54-4.6(a)-(b). 23 But Veoh seeks costs for at least two expedited transcripts. See Application Ex. C at 24 51 ("Delivery: Daily"), 61 ("Delivery: Expedited"). Veoh does not break out the 25 26 While UMG respectfully submits that Veoh has not established its 27 entitlement to any award of costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), UMG does not address such arguments here. UMG reserves its right to present such 28 arguments in opposing Veoh's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S APPLICATION TO CLERK TO TAX CERTAIN COSTS 2161840

1

-1-

1 cost of expediting a transcript, and thus fails to justify its request for costs related to 2 the expedited transcripts identified in its submission, which total $4,724.40. 3 4. Veoh's Bill of Costs claims $48,623.75 in "Fees of the court reporter for all or 4 any part of the transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case." See Bill of Costs 5 at 1. Exhibit C purportedly includes invoices for costs allowable by Local Rules 546 4.5 and 54-4.6, i.e., the costs included in Veoh's $48,623.75 sum. But those 7 invoices only add to $45,779.28. Thus Veoh has failed to submit invoices justifying 8 almost $3,000 in costs it seeks.2 Similarly, Veoh reports $11,952.31 in costs 9 associated with outside vendor copying charges, see Application Ex. A at 5, but its 10 supporting invoices only sum to $11,249.29. Thus $1,955.99 should be deducted 11 from Veoh's request as a result of these incongruities. 12 5. Veoh seeks costs totaling $24,655.49 "for exemplification and copies of 13 papers necessarily obtained for use in the case." But Veoh's supporting materials 14 nowhere confirm that all of its reproduction costs are allowed under Rule 54-4.11. 15 That rule only permits reproduction costs incurred in connection with (a) "copies of 16 an exhibit attached to a document necessarily filed and served[;]" (b) "copies of 17 documents admitted into evidence when the original is not available or the copy is 18 substituted for the original at the request of an opposing party[;]" (c) "an official 19 certification of proof respecting the non-existence of a document or record[;]" (d) 20 certain Patent Office charges; (e) notary fees; and (f) "fees for necessary 21 certification or exemplification of any document." L.R. 54-4.11. Many of Veoh's 22 invoices do not appear to cover costs allowed under this rule. See Application Ex. B 23 at 26 ("CD Duplication"), 27 ("DVD Duplication"), 40 ("92,340 Pages B&W Blow 24 Back with Blue Slip Sheets[;] UMG01611716-UMG01704055"). Further, the only 25 evidence Veoh submits in support of its claim that copies were "necessarily obtained 26 27 Of this difference, $1,591.50 is addressed in the $15,034.25 total set forth in objection no. 1. UMG has adjusted the total deduction warranted from Veoh's costs 28 accordingly, removing any potential double-counting.
UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S APPLICATION TO CLERK TO TAX CERTAIN COSTS 2161840

2

-2-

1 for use in the case" is a form declaration signed by a single attorney. See Bill of 2 Costs at 1. Courts have reduced reproduction costs awarded by at least 50% in such 3 circumstances. See, e.g., Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice 4 Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming reduction of copying 5 costs sought by prevailing party by 50%); In re Turn-Key-Tech Matters, 2002 WL 6 32521815, *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2002) (citing cases and granting Defendants only 7 "50% of the total amount they are seeking for copying costs"). Consistent with 8 these prior cases, Veoh's reproduction costs should be similarly reduced by half, or 9 $12,327.45. 10 11 13 14 Dated: December 1, 2009 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S APPLICATION TO CLERK TO TAX CERTAIN COSTS 2161840

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk should deny those costs improperly

12 included in Veoh's Application, totaling $39,293.09. IRELL & MANELLA LLP Steven A. Marenberg Brian D. Ledahl Carter R. Batsell

By:

/s (with permission) Brian D. Ledahl

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-3-