Gatx/Airlog Company, et al v. Evergreen Intl, et al

Filing 2291

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken REDUCING COSTS AWARDED TO DEFENDANTS ON REMAND. (denying as moot 2290 Motion to Expedite) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

KALITTA AIR, LLC,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8

ORDER REDUCING
COSTS AWARDED TO
DEFENDANTS ON
REMAND

v.
CENTRAL TEXAS AIRBORNE SYSTEMS,
et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

No. C 96-2494 CW

________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

On December 19, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion,
11
affirming in part and reversing in part this Court’s December 5,
12
2012 order awarding $622,036.38 in costs to Defendant Central
13
Texas Airborne Systems (CTAS).

The Ninth Circuit remanded the

14
matter for further proceedings.

The Court now revises the costs

15
awarded, consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.
16
I.

Pro Hac Vice Admission Fees

17
In its December 2012 order, the Court awarded Defendant CTAS
18
$1,310 in pro hac vice admission fees.

The Ninth Circuit held

19
that such fees are not recoverable as costs.

Accordingly, the

20
Court reduces the costs awarded by $1,310.
21
II.

Deposition Editing and Synchronization

22
In its December 2012 order, the Court allowed CTAS to recover
23
costs for editing and synchronizing deposition videotapes.

The

24
Ninth Circuit held that such costs are not recoverable.
25
CTAS claimed $34,673.70 for deposition editing.

This

26
represented a voluntary thirty percent reduction from the invoice
27
amount of $49,534.50.
28

In its December 2012 order, the Court found

1

that a fifty percent reduction was more appropriate, and reduced

2

the amount awarded by an additional $9,906.00 for a total award of

3

$24,767.70 in costs related to editing deposition videotapes.

4

Court also allowed CTAS to recover $12,479.87 for synchronization

5

of the deposition videotapes.

6

the costs awarded by $37,247.57.

7

III. Summary of Costs to be Awarded

8
9

Accordingly, the Court will reduce

As discussed above, the Court reduces the costs awarded by
$1,310 for pro hac vice admission fees and $37,247.57 for

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

The

deposition editing and synchronization.

11

$38,557.57.

12

$583,478.81.

13

IV.

14

The total reduction is

Accordingly, the net amount of costs to be awarded is

Interest
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) provides, “Interest shall be

15

allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a

16

district court. . .

17

date of the entry of the judgment.”

18

is reduced on appeal, “the district court’s determination should

19

be viewed as correct to the extent it was permitted to stand, and

20

interest on a judgment thus partially affirmed should be computed

21

from the date of its initial entry.”

22

of Cal., 487 F.2d 672, 676 (9th Cir. 1973).

23

entitled to interest on the Court’s award of costs.

Part of the

24

award was the June 24, 2002 cost award of $355,370.

CTAS is

25

entitled to interest on that amount from the date of the original

26

judgment, June 24, 2002.

27

remaining amount of $228,108.81 from December 5, 2012, the date

28

the Court entered judgment on the second cost application.

Such interest shall be calculated from the
Where, as here, the judgment

Perkins v. Standard Oil Co.
Accordingly, CTAS is

CTAS is entitled to interest on the

2

1
2

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court awards CTAS $583,478.81

3

in costs.

4

calculated from June 24, 2002.

5

the remaining $228,108.81 from December 5, 2012.

6

be calculated according to the rates rules set out in 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 1961(a).

8

due forthwith.

9

costs on remand is DENIED as moot (Docket No. 2290).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

CTAS is entitled to interest on $355,370 of that award,
CTAS is entitled to interest on
Interest shall

Kalitta shall pay the costs awarded and the interest
CTAS’s motion for an expedited determination of

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated:

2/12/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3