Gordon v. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Filing 199

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman denying 197 Motion for Taxation of Costs and VACATING hearing presently scheduled for November 17, 2010. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2010)

Gordon v. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Doc. 199

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, and DOES 1-15, inclusive, Defendant(s). ANDREA GORDON Plaintiff(s), ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C08-3630 (BZ)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS

After reviewing plaintiff's Motion to Tax Costs and defendant's opposition, the Court finds no need for argument and vacates the hearing scheduled for November 17, 2010. IS ORDERED as follows: 1) Plaintiff's objection to taxing the cost of a rough Under 28 U.S.C. IT

draft deposition transcript is DENIED.

1920(2), transcript costs are allowed if the transcript was "necessarily obtained for use in the case." Federal Practice & Procedure ("FPP") § 2677. Taxing the cost of a rough draft I am

transcript is not prohibited by Civil L.R. 54-3(c)(1).

satisfied that given the nearness to trial, the rough draft 1
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

deposition transcript was necessarily obtained for use in this case. 2) Plaintiff's objection to taxing the cost of the summary judgment hearing transcript is DENIED. Although Civil

L.R. 54-3(b)(3) states that costs for reporter transcripts are "not normally allowable" unless approved by the court or stipulated to before incurred, discretion still exists with the court to tax transcripts if equitable considerations apply. FPP § 2677. The cost of a transcript should be taxed

if the transcript was "necessarily obtained for use in the case." Id. Once again,

I am satisfied that this transcript was necessarily obtained for use in this case, given the request for further briefing. 3) Plaintiff's objection to the cost of multimedia Under Civil L.R. 54-3(d)(2), the

duplication is DENIED.

taxing of costs for the reproduction of disclosure and formal discovery documents is allowable the case. when used for any purpose in

I am satisfied that costs for electronic

duplication of the deposition transcript were incurred for its use in this case. 4) Plaintiff's objection to the taxing of "handling and

holding" costs, as shown in the invoice for deposition transcripts, is DENIED. Civil L.R. 54-3(c)(1) specifically allows the taxing of costs for "an original and one copy of any deposition. The "handling and holding" costs, as shown,

are part of the cumulative costs associated with procuring the deposition transcript. 5) Plaintiff's objection to the taxing of defendant's 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

costs for photocopies is DENIED.

Costs relating to the

reproduction of discovery documents and trial exhibits are specifically allowed under Civil L.R. 54-3(d). Furthermore,

the cost of bates-stamping photocopied documents, as an add-on service, is considered part of an approved reproduction expense. Competitive Techs. v. Fujitsu Ltd. 2006 WL 6338914

at *8 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Dated: November 2, 2010 Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\GORDON\ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TAX COSTS. BZ FINAL VERSION.wpd

3