Fitbug Limited v. Fitbit, Inc
Filing
119
Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting in part and denying in part 108 motion for review of the Clerk's taxation of costs 106 , and taxing $63,660.94 in costs. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
FITBUG LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
12
FITBIT, INC.,
Defendant.
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13-1418 SC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
REVIEW OF CLERK'S TAXATION OF
COSTS
15
16
I.
17
INTRODUCTION
Now before the Court is Plaintiff Fitbug Limited's ("Fitbug")
18
motion for review of costs allowed by the Clerk of the Court
19
("Clerk").
20
Costs"), 106 ("Cost Taxed").
21
112 ("Opp'n"), 114 ("Reply"), and appropriate for resolution
22
without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
23
reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED
24
in part, and the Court taxes $63,660.94 in costs.
ECF No. 108 ("Mot."); see also ECF Nos. 100 ("Bill of
The motion is fully briefed, ECF Nos.
For the
25
26
27
28
II.
BACKGROUND
This is a trademark infringement case between two companies
that manufacture and sell portable electronic fitness tracking
1
devices.
The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant
2
Fitbit, Inc. ("Fitbit") on all the trademark claims, finding they
3
were barred by laches, ECF No. 96 ("SJ Order"), and thus entered
4
judgment in Fitbit's favor.
5
that judgment, Fitbit submitted a bill of costs as required by 28
6
U.S.C. Section 1920, which authorizes the Court or its Clerk to tax
7
as "costs" various "minor, incidental [litigation]
8
expenses . . . ."
9
1997, 2006 (2012).
ECF No. 97 ("Judgment").
Pursuant to
Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
In its bill of costs, Fitbit sought $88,888.86 in costs.
11
Fitbug objected, ECF No. 103, and the Clerk ultimately taxed costs
12
of $54,089.15.
13
the ambit of Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)," and $17,802.59 as "outside
14
the ambit of Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)," which furnish the standards
15
for allowable deposition costs and reproduction and exemplification
16
costs, respectively.
17
The Clerk declined to tax $16,997.12 as "outside
See Civ. L.R. 54-3(c)-(d).
Despite the Clerk's substantial reductions to Fitbit's costs,
18
Fitbug believes the amount taxed includes non-taxable items.
As a
19
result, Fitbug asks the Court to either reject Fitbit's claimed
20
costs entirely or, at a minimum, reduce them by a further
21
$27,468.58.
Fitbit opposes any further reductions in its costs.
22
23
24
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Awarding costs is discretionary; however there is a
25
presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties.
26
Ass'n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591
27
(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); see also Jefferson v. City of Fremont,
28
No. C-12-0926 EMC, 2015 WL 1264703, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19,
2
See
1
2015).
Nonetheless, "[w]ith regard to individual itemized costs,
2
the burden is on the party seeking costs . . . to establish the
3
amount of compensable costs and expenses to which it is entitled."
4
City of Alameda v. Nuveen Mun. High Income Opportunity Fund, No. C-
5
08-4575 SI, 2012 WL 177566, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012)
6
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides for a party to
7
8
move for judicial review of costs taxed by the clerk.
9
P. 54(d)(1).
The Court reviews the Clerk's taxation of costs de
United States District Court
10
For the Northern District of California
Fed. R. Civ.
novo.
11
2d 981, 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
12
See Lopez v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 385 F. Supp.
Taxable costs are listed in 28 U.S.C. Section 1920 ("Section
13
1920"), and include: (1) filing fees and other court fees, (2) fees
14
for transcripts "necessarily obtained for use in the case;" (3)
15
costs of exemplification and copies also "necessarily obtained,"
16
(4) certain fees for printing and witnesses, (5) docket fees under
17
28 U.S.C. Section 1923, and (6) costs of court-appointed experts or
18
compensation for interpreters.
19
The Civil Local Rules provide additional guidance regarding
20
bills of costs.
See Civ. L.R. 54-1(a); Civ. L.R. 54-3.
21
Specifically, the Local Rules require a party's bill of costs
22
"state separately and specifically each item of taxable costs
23
claimed."
24
affidavit stating that the items listed are "correct and [have]
25
been necessarily incurred in the case and that the services for
26
which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily
27
performed."
28
(requiring a supporting affidavit stating that "the costs are
Civ. L.R. 54-1(a).
Further, a party must provide an
28 U.S.C. § 1924; see also Civ. L.R. 54-1(a)
3
1
correctly stated, were necessarily incurred, and are allowable by
2
law").
3
4
5
IV.
DISCUSSION
First, Fitbug argues that because Fitbit's declaration
6
supporting its bill of costs, ECF No. 100-1 ("First Wakefield
7
Decl."), does not state (as required by Civil Local Rule 54-1(a))
8
that its claimed costs are "allowable by law," all of Fitbit's
9
costs should be denied.
However, Fitbit's declaration states it is
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
filed "in support of Fitbit's Bill of Costs" and is "in accordance
11
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, Local Rules 54-1 and 54-3,
12
and 28 U.S.C. § 1924."
13
believes "[n]o other words can tell it half so clearly," the
14
requirement a party say the "three little words," "allowable by
15
law," is merely a reminder that the Court expects them to submit
16
costs they believe are taxable, not a set of magic words necessary
17
to receive any costs.
18
Live at the London House (Mercury Records 1958), available at:
19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WSZ6IRC-ys.
20
Fitbit's declaration makes clear, Fitbit submitted these costs in
21
good faith and understood that doing so was a representation to the
22
Court and the Clerk that the costs were "allowed by law."
23
Court must decide whether Fitbit was right or not.
24
declines to elevate form over substance to avoid making that
25
decision.
Id. at ¶ 2.
While Fitbug apparently
Cf. Sarah Vaughan, Three Little Words, on
As the language of
Now the
The Court
26
The balance of Fitbug's motion takes issue with Fitbit's
27
claimed costs for shipping, electronic discovery and document
28
production, preparing demonstrative exhibits, and certain office
4
1
supplies.
The Court also addresses the claimed costs for
2
deposition transcripts and, finally, photocopying and scanning.
3
A.
Shipping Charges
4
Shipping or expedited delivery charges are not allowable as
5
costs.
See SJA Amoroso Const. Co. v. Exec. Risk Indemn. Inc., No.
6
C 06-2572-SBA, 2009 WL 962008, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2009).
7
Fitbug rightly points out that Fitbit sought as costs $324.28 for
8
FedEx shipping and messenger services.
9
notes that shipping and handling for deposition transcripts are
Further, Fitbug's objection
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
also not allowable.
See Obj. at 6-7; see also Blanton v. Cnty. of
11
Sacramento, No. 2:09-cv-01832-MCE-CKD, 2013 WL 3283216, at *2 (E.D.
12
Cal. June 27, 2013) ("[T]he court will not tax the cost of postage
13
and handling of the deposition transcripts, since those costs are
14
not enumerated in [28 U.S.C. Section 1920].") (internal quotation
15
marks and citation omitted).
16
review is GRANTED and these costs will not be taxed.
As a result, Fitbug's motion for
17
B.
18
Next, Fitbug takes issue with several costs associated with
19
20
Electronic Discovery and Document Production
electronic discovery and document production.
Section 1920 was enacted in 1853 and as a result does not
21
speak directly on the taxability of electronic discovery costs.
22
See Alzheimer's Inst. of Am. Inc. v. Elan Corp. PLC, No. C-10-
23
00482-EDL, 2013 WL 8744216, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013).
24
has the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court spoken on how Section 1920
25
should be interpreted in this context, aside from remarking that
26
(in a distinct context, see id. at *1 (distinguishing this general
27
statement)) "[t]axable costs are limited to relatively minor,
28
incidental expenses."
Taniguchi, 132 S. Ct. at 2006.
5
Nor
1
In this vacuum, courts have analogized the language of Section
2
1920(4), which authorizes the taxation of "[f]ees for
3
exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials
4
where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the
5
case . . . ," to a variety of electronic discovery expenses.
6
e.g., Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 11-CV-06357 YGR, 2013
7
WL 4532927, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013) (allowing costs for
8
converting electronic documents into usable formats while denying
9
costs for hosting electronic data and technical support);
See,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Pacificorp v. Nw. Pipeline GP, No. 3:10-cv-00099-PK, 2012 WL
11
6131558, at *7-8 (D. Or. Dec. 10, 2012) (concluding that conversion
12
of electronic documents into a database is taxable); Tibbie v.
13
Edison Int'l, No. CV 07-5359 SVW (AGRx), 2011 WL 3759927, at *6
14
(C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011) (taxing costs for technical experts
15
required to prepare and produce electronic discovery documents).
16
17
18
1.
Charges for "FW Litigation Support -- Data
Extraction and Processing
The first electronic discovery expense Fitbug disputes is five
19
charges for "FW Litigation Support -- Data Extraction and
20
Processing" apparently totaling $23,464.98.
21
one of these charges, described in Fitbug's moving papers as $23.78
22
claimed for "FW Litigation Support -- Data Extraction and
23
Processing," id., does not actually appear in Fitbit's submissions.
24
On the contrary, the only $23.78 item Fitbit submitted is an
25
already-disallowed shipping charge, dated November 18, 2013.
26
First Wakefield Decl. Ex. B at 8.
27
wrongly dated in both Fitbug's objection and motion, the Court
28
surmises that Fitbug likely meant to challenge a different charge
Mot. at 6.
However,
See
Even though this charge is also
6
1
(also for "FW Litigation Support -- Data Extraction and
2
Processing") dated November 30, 2013 and totaling $8,840.85.
3
result, the correct total for these objected-to charges is
4
$32,282.05.
5
As a
The First Wakefield Declaration avers that these costs relate
6
"to collection, scanning and conversion of documents, and related
7
processes necessary to the eDiscovery process," and these entries
8
specifically "concern document collection, including scanning and
9
related processes."
In a subsequent declaration, Wakefield
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
provides more information about these costs, stating that they were
11
necessary to prepare discovery documents for production to Fitbug
12
in the format to which the parties agreed.
13
("Second Wakefield Decl.") at ¶¶ 9-10; see also ECF No. 23
14
(stating, in a joint case management statement, that the parties
15
agreed to a particular format for electronic documents).
16
See ECF No. 112-1
As Fitbit points out, several other courts have taxed similar
17
electronic document processing costs where, as here, the parties
18
agreed to a particular format for production and the costs incurred
19
were necessary for compliance with that agreement.
20
2013 WL 4532927, at *2; eBay v. Kelora Sys., LLC, No. C 10-4947 CW
21
(LB), 2013 WL 1402736, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2013).
22
Initially, Fitbug argued that these costs were impermissible
23
because they included non-taxable costs for data hosting, metadata
24
extraction, and printing documents to serve on opposing counsel.
25
See ECF No. 108-1 ("Rosenberg Decl.") ¶¶ 3-4.
26
submissions by Fitbit have clarified that such charges are not
27
included in Fitbit's claimed costs with the exception of metadata
28
extraction, which Fitbit states was necessary to comply with the
7
See Ancora,
However, subsequent
1
parties' agreement regarding the production of electronic
2
documents.
3
See Second Wakefield Decl. ¶ 9, 11, 18.
Fitbug believes the Court should disregard these subsequent
4
documents because they provide details not included with Fitbit's
5
submissions to the Clerk.
6
to "require and consider further affidavits and documentation as
7
necessary to determine allowable costs."
8
the Clerk may consider such supplemental submissions, the Court
9
cannot imagine why it cannot do so as well.
However, the Local Rules allow the Clerk
Civ. L.R. 54-4(a).
If
See Gutierrez v. Wells
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 07-05923 WHA, 2011 WL 115481, at *2 (N.D.
11
Cal. Jan. 13, 2011) ("First, [Fitbug] seeks to limit [Fitbit] to
12
the attachment filed with the bill of costs, but the local rules
13
explicitly provide for submission of supplemental documentation
14
rebutting objections, and the federal rules provide for challenges
15
to the taxing of costs.") (citations and emphasis omitted); see
16
also Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG, 2015 WL
17
1304779, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015) (considering arguably
18
untimely supplementation of the record because it was a "good-faith
19
attempt to provide the court with all information necessary to make
20
a reasoned determination about whether to tax costs").
21
Thus, the Court finds these expenses are properly taxed as
22
exemplification costs necessarily incurred in complying with the
23
parties' agreement.
24
extraction are included, these too are necessarily incurred,
25
allowable exemplification costs because they were incurred not for
26
the convenience of counsel, but to comply with the parties'
27
agreement.
28
No. C-05-01766 RMW, 2009 WL 5114002, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18,
Moreover, to the extent the costs of metadata
Compare Computer Cache Coherency Corp. v. Intel Corp.,
8
1
2009) (denying costs for metadata extraction costs merely for the
2
convenience of counsel), with eBay, 2013 WL 1402736, at *12
3
(allowing such costs where the parties agreement provided for
4
metadata extraction, Bates numbering, and native file links).
5
result, Fitbug's motion for review of the Clerk's taxation of these
6
costs is DENIED, and these $32,282.05 in costs will be taxed.
2.
7
Charges for "FW Litigation Support -- Production
Deliveries"
8
9
As a
Next, Fitbug challenges seven items for "FW Litigation Support
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
-- Production Deliveries" totaling $4,466.91.
11
argued these charges are taxable because they "relate to production
12
of documents."
13
has elaborated that these charges include costs for converting
14
document formats as required by the parties' agreement, as well as
15
providing Bates numbers and confidentiality designation, preparing
16
load files, and loading the information onto physical media for
17
delivery to Fitbug.
18
contrary to Fitbug's chief objection, Fitbit now avers that the
19
costs of shipping or physical deliveries of these materials are not
20
included in these charges.
21
First Wakefield Decl. at ¶ 5.
Initially, Fitbit
Subsequently, Fitbit
Second Wakefield Decl. at ¶ 14.
Furthermore,
Id. at ¶ 15.
These costs are properly taxed as well because they are
22
expressly contemplated by the parties' agreement and are
23
necessarily incurred exemplification costs.
24
1402736, at *7, 12.
25
are necessarily incurred because without the conversion and
26
organization of these files, "any copy is relatively useless."
27
at *7.
28
provide a fuller explanation of these charges in its initial
See eBay, 2013 WL
As Magistrate Judge Beeler found, such costs
Id.
While Fitbug reiterates its complaints that Fitbit did not
9
1
submissions and again made statements in the parties' meet and
2
confer that are contradicted by its subsequent submissions, the
3
Court rejected these arguments as to the other discovery costs and
4
does so here as well.
5
115481, at *2.
6
Clerk's taxation of these costs is DENIED and this $4,466.91 will
7
be taxed.
See Civ. L.R. 54-4(a); Gutierrez, 2011 WL
As a result, Fitbug's motion for review of the
8
C.
9
Next, Fitbug challenges numerous costs related to Fitbit's
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Demonstrative Exhibit-Related Charges
preparation of demonstrative exhibits.
Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(5) provides that the "costs of
12
preparing charts, diagrams, videotapes, and other visual aids to be
13
used as exhibits is allowable if such exhibits are reasonably
14
necessary . . . ."
15
are limited to "the cost of physical preparation of
16
demonstratives," not "costs associated with the intellectual effort
17
involved in creating the content of demonstratives."
18
WL 4532927, at *5 (quoting Computer Cache, 2009 WL 5114002, at *1-
19
2) (additional citations omitted).
20
The "costs of preparing" demonstrative exhibits
Ancora, 2013
Here, only some of the costs claimed by Fitbit are taxable.
21
For instance, generic entries like "Meeting with counsel" or
22
"Travel to[]/from SF" are either not taxable or likely include both
23
taxable and non-taxable components.
24
meeting, review, and development of Defense slide deck" likely
25
include some taxable expenses, however the Court finds Fitbit has
26
not sufficiently shown that these costs stem from the physical
27
preparation of the demonstrative exhibits and not the "creation and
28
preparation of the content of demonstrative exhibits," which is not
10
Others, like "[a]ll-day
1
taxable.
See Pixion Inc. v. Placeware, Inc., No. C 03-02909 SI,
2
2005 WL 3955889, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2005).
3
hand, the charges labelled "Defense Template," "Cut depo clips,"
4
and "Database administration" all refer to the physical acts of
5
preparing a slide template for use with Fitbit's demonstratives, or
6
the physical act of editing videos of depositions and are thus
7
taxable.
8
Similarly, the physical acts of incorporating comments from counsel
9
and making stylistic changes, referred to Fitbit's invoices as
On the other
Id.; see also Second Wakefield Decl. at ¶¶ 22, 24.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
"Continue Slide Deck Revisions . . ." and "Review of PowerPoint
11
Draft . . ." are taxable because they reflect the physical
12
preparation of the contents separately decided upon by counsel.
13
Second Wakefield Decl. ¶ 24.
14
taxable or not sufficiently described for the Court to determine if
15
they are taxable, and thus will be excluded from the costs taxed.
16
See In re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litig., 661 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed.
17
Cir. 2011) (applying Ninth Circuit law in disallowing
18
insufficiently described costs for document production).
19
result, the motion for review is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part
20
as to these charges, and $5,859.00 will be taxed.
The remaining costs are either not
As a
21
D.
22
Next, Fitbug challenges Fitbit's claimed costs for the
23
creation of folders, compact discs, index tabs, and other office
24
supplies.
25
Supplies
Fitbug is right to object to the majority of these charges,
26
which are simply non-taxable office supplies.
27
Tuolumne Fire Dist., No. 1:11-cv-01271-SAB, 2014 WL 1757217, at *21
28
(E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2014) ("[T]he costs of office supplies are not
11
See Oyarzo v.
1
taxable under [S]ection 1920.") (citing Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v.
2
Cameron Int'l Corp., No. 1:05-cv-01411-MLHGSA, 2012 WL 4210104, at
3
*5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2012)).
4
GRANTED as to items such as "Manila Folder," "Copying:Custom Tabs
5
on Folders," or "Index Tabs."
6
similar costs, for instance slipsheets and binders, will not be
7
taxed.
8
$0.48 for slipsheets and $19.00 for three-ring binders).
9
Fitbug also objects to charges for two other items,
As a result, Fitbug's motion is
Mot. at 7-8.
These and other
See, e.g., First Wakefield Decl. Ex. A at 14 (including
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
"EDD:Folder Creation" and "EDD:CD Initial Master," arguing that
11
these are non-taxable organizational or indexing tasks.
12
Elec. Materials v. Mitsubishi Materials, No. C-01-4925 SBA (JCS),
13
2004 WL 5361246, at *3, 12 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2004) (concluding
14
that "Local Rule [54-3(d)] does not authorize costs for . . .
15
special services such as indexing . . ."), report and
16
recommendation adopted, 2004 WL 5363614 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2004).
17
Fitbit does not defend charges for these items on a June 5, 2014
18
invoice, which it later discovered was erroneously included in the
19
bill of costs.1
20
however, argue that two of these charges are appropriately taxed
21
because they were "incurred . . . in scanning and otherwise
22
organizing the documents collected" from a third-party former
Second Wakefield Decl. at ¶ 29.
See MEMC
Fitbit does,
23
1
24
25
26
27
28
The Second Wakefield Declaration states that "one invoice for
$53.75 billed on June 4, 2014 was assigned to the wrong case number
and billed in error, and should not have been included in the bill
of costs," id. at ¶ 29, however the invoice itself includes two
other potentially taxable charges, one for scanning and the other
for copying. See First Wakefield Decl. Ex. B at 34. Because the
Court cannot determine from the record whether these remaining
charges were properly included in the bill of costs or were also
erroneously charged, these charges will not be taxed. See id.
12
1
Fitbit employee, Mark Bult, for production in response to Fitbug's
2
subpoena of Mr. Bult.
3
are permissible under both Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(2), which
4
states that the cost of reproducing "formal discovery documents
5
. . . is allowable," and cases allowing for the taxation of the
6
costs of producing discovery documents where those costs were
7
necessarily incurred and do not include "intellectual efforts"
8
involved in the production.
9
(citations omitted).
Second Wakefield Decl. ¶ 27.
These costs
See eBay, 2013 WL 1402736, at *5
As a result, Fitbug's motion for review is
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and only the $28.25 incurred in
11
responding to the Bult subpoena will be taxed.
12
CD creation charges have not been sufficiently explained by Fitbit,
13
and as a result will not be taxed.
14
1368.
The other folder or
See In re Ricoh, 661 F.3d at
15
E.
Depositions
16
Finally, while Fitbug did not seek review of the Clerk's
17
taxation of deposition costs, it did argue in its objection that
18
certain deposition costs should not be taxed.
19
reviews the Clerk's taxation of costs de novo, the Court addresses
20
these costs as well.
21
Given that the Court
Section 1920 provides for the taxation of "[f]ees for printed
22
or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use
23
in the case . . . ."
24
provides for the taxation of the costs of an original and one copy
25
of deposition transcripts "including videotaped depositions," as
26
well as "[n]otary fees incurred in connection with taking
27
depositions . . . ."
28
Id. at (2).
Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)
See Civ. L.R. 54-3(c)(1), (3).
First, Fitbug notes that Fitbit seeks costs for "Transcript
13
1
Packages" from a vendor, Esquire Solutions, for the depositions of
2
Mark Bult, James Park,2 and Amy McDonough.
3
packages contain more than the single original and copy permitted
4
by the Local Rules because, according to Esquire Solutions'
5
website, the transcript packages contain a bound paper transcript,
6
and a CD containing four versions of the full or condensed
7
transcripts.
8
Although "the trend among courts in this District appears to allow
9
a party to recover costs for the original deposition transcript and
Fitbug argues these
See ECF No. 103-1 ("Second Rosenberg Decl.") Ex. 1.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
a copy -- no matter what format the copy is in," Fitbug is right
11
that these transcript packages contain more than an original and a
12
single copy, as permitted by the Local Rules, and accordingly
13
cannot be fully taxed.
14
Supp. 3d --, 2014 WL 7184246, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
15
finds that taxing only 40 percent of the transcript packages is the
16
best potential solution because Esquire does not itemize the costs
17
of each additional format.
18
for the deposition of Amy McDonough and $235.65 for the deposition
19
of Mark Bult.
20
$1,471.80 for the deposition of James Park.
See Hesterberg
v. United States, -- F.
The Court
Accordingly, the Court taxes $348.15
As explained in footnote two, above, the Court taxes
For the remaining depositions, the Court finds the only
21
22
allowable costs are one transcript copy, one additional copy (in
23
most cases a video copy), exhibit costs, and a reporter
24
2
25
26
27
28
Fitbit submitted two invoices from Esquire for the deposition of
Mr. Park. One merely refers to a single copy of the transcript,
while the other contains the same objectionable transcript package.
See First Wakefield Decl. Ex. A at 16-18. The Court taxes the full
cost of the single copy, 20 percent of the transcript package as
the second copy, and a single set of exhibits, for a total of
$1,471.80.
14
1
certification if not otherwise included in the cost of the
2
transcript.
3
at *5-6 (concluding there is "no reason to deny costs which conform
4
to [Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1)], even if the second copy is a
5
rough ASCII or a video").
6
charges for shipping and handling of transcripts, "Interactive
7
Realtime," rough ASCII copies, and transcript CDs either fall
8
outside Section 1920 or exceed the number of copies permitted by
9
Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1).
See Civ. L.R. 54-3(c)(1)-(4); Ancora, 2013 WL 4532927,
Fitbug rightly objects that the other
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
following deposition costs:
11
Deponent
Mark Bult
Accordingly, the Court taxes the
12
13
14
Dennis Skigen
Items
Transcript Package
(taxed at 40%)
Exhibits
Transcript
15
Exhibits
16
Reporter Certification
Amount
$155.90
$79.75
$1,050.00
$276.20
$20.00
17
Video
18
19
Paul Landau
20
$570.00
Transcript
Exhibits
$1,527.20
$283.30
21
Reporter Certification
22
Video
James Park
25
26
27
28
Fergus Kee
$760.00
Transcript
$926.25
Exhibits
23
24
$20.00
$357.10
Transcript Package
(taxed at 20%)
Transcript
$188.45
15
$1,070.70
Exhibits
1
Reporter Certification
2
3
4
Woody Scal
Video
Transcript
$233.80
$20.00
$855.00
$471.25
5
Exhibits
6
Video (1 of 4)
Transcript
$125.00
$591.50
Exhibits
$193.10
Video
Transcript Package
(taxed at 40%
Exhibits
$500.00
$240.40
7
Eric Friedman
$11.75
8
9
Amy McDonough
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
$107.75
11
Sundeep Sangany
Transcript
$1,657.50
12
Exhibits
$25.20
Reporter Certification
$20.00
13
14
E. Deborah Jay
Video
Transcript
$760.00
$413.80
Exhibits
15
$106.00
16
17
18
Bruce Issacson
19
Transcript
Exhibits
20
Reporter Certification
$1,306.40
$658.80
$20.00
21
David Haas
Transcript
$1,004.50
22
Exhibits
23
Video
24
25
$140.50
$1,742.50
26
Michael J.
Jeffords
Videos (2 of 4)
27
TOTAL DEPOSITION COSTS TAXED:
28
16
$250.00
$18,739.60
1
F.
Remaining Exemplification Costs
2
In addition to the foregoing contested costs, Fitbit also
3
sought $2,210.24 for photocopying and $74.89 for scanning.
Because
4
these costs are necessarily incurred exemplification costs, see 28
5
U.S.C. Section 1920(4), they will be taxed as well.
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Fitbug's motion for review
of the Clerk's taxation of costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part and the Court taxes the following costs:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Category
Deposition transcripts,
video transcripts, reporter
certifications, and exhibits
Photocopying and scanning
Electronic discovery and
document production costs
Preparation of demonstrative
exhibits
Production costs for Bult
subpoena
Amount
$18,739.60
TOTAL COSTS TAXED:
$63,660.94
$2,285.13
$36,748.96
$5,859.00
$28.25
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: May 13, 2015
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
17
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?