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