Petroliam Nasional Berhad v., Inc.

Filing 177

RESPONSE to re 176 Objection Go Daddy's Response to Petronas's Objections to Bill of Costs by, Inc.. (Fiorino, Joseph) (Filed on 3/16/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JOHN L. SLAFSKY, State Bar No. 195513 DAVID L. LANSKY, State Bar No. 199952 HOLLIS BETH HIRE, State Bar No. 203651 JOSEPH G. FIORINO, State Bar No. 262787 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 493-6811 Email: Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant, GODADDY.COM, INC. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 GODADDY.COM, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 GODADDY.COM, INC., 19 20 21 22 Counterclaimant, vs. PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD, Counterclaim Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 09-CV-5939 PJH GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO PETRONAS’S OBJECTIONS TO BILL OF COSTS Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton 23 24 Defendant and Counterclaimant, Inc. (“Go Daddy”) respectfully submits 25 this response to the objections of Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Petroliam Nasional Berhad 26 (“Petronas”) to the Bill of Costs filed by Go Daddy on February 29, 2012. The objections raised 27 by Petronas are an attempt to evade responsibility for the monetary costs incurred by Go Daddy in 28 GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO PETRONAS’S OBJECTIONS TO BILL OF COSTS Case No. 4:09-cv-05939-PJH -1- 1 defending itself against an unnecessary lawsuit brought by Petronas. Furthermore, Pertronas’s 2 accusation that there is “nothing [that]. . . supports the costs claimed” in Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs 3 ignores the documentary evidence and case law cited in the Declaration of Joseph G. Fiorino in 4 support of Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs (“Fiorino Decl.”) and demonstrates a narrow and erroneous 5 understanding of Civil Local Rule 54. 6 Deposition Transcripts 7 Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1) provides that, with respect to deposition transcripts, “[t]he 8 cost of an original and one copy of any deposition (including videotaped depositions) taken for 9 any purpose in the case” is recoverable. Petronas’s assertion that videotaping of a deposition is to 10 be viewed as a superfluous additional copy is misplaced. See Objection to Go Daddy’s Bill of 11 Costs (“Obj.”) at 1-2. Both the videotaping, including technician fees, and the written transcripts 12 are recoverable. Indeed, “a sensible reading of [Rule 54-3(c)(1) is that it] covers the cost of 13 videotaping and the cost incurred by the court reporter associated with obtaining a stenographic 14 transcription of a deposition, as well as the cost of one copy of the videotape and of the written 15 transcript.” MEMC Electronic Materials v. Mitsubishi Materials, No. C 01-4925 SBA (JCS), 16 2004 WL 5361246, at *3 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 22, 2004) (awarding costs for both the videotaping and 17 transcribing of depositions); see also Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 18 1139, 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“The cost of videotaping, including video technician fees, as well as 19 the cost of the videotape and written transcript are taxable costs.”). 20 Furthermore, Petronas’s claim that Go Daddy seeks more than an original and one copy of 21 any transcript is incorrect. The invoices for Items 4-6 of the Itemized Bill of Costs each reflect 22 charges that are for only an original and one certified copy of each deposition, and that invoices 23 corresponding to Items 7-10 are for merely one certified copy of each deposition—without any 24 mention of charges for videotaping. See Exhibit C to Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs at 5-11. In the 25 invoices for Items 1-3, which (as discussed above) are for the properly recoverable cost of 26 videotaping, the column for “DVD Sync Copies” is a reference to the number of discs required to 27 capture the deposition, as the testimony from one deposition spanned across multiple DVDs. It is 28 GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO PETRONAS’S OBJECTIONS TO BILL OF COSTS Case No. 4:09-cv-05939-PJH -2- 1 not, as Petronas contends, a reference to the multiple copies of a single deposition. See Exhibit C 2 to Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs at 2-4. 3 Similarly, other necessary and natural costs—such as for rough discs, delivery, and 4 expedited services—tied to the transcribing of depositions are recoverable. See Service Employees 5 Intern. Union v. Rosselli, No. C 09-00404 WHA, 2010 WL 4502176, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 6 2010) (overruling objections to reporter’s invoices listing “‘rough disk’ fees, ‘expedited’ services 7 charges, parking reimbursements, charges for court reporter ‘waiting time,’ charges for court 8 reporter ‘before/after hours,’ delivery costs, appearance and travel fees, ‘video digitizing to 9 DVD[s],’ and ‘video synchronizing’”; awarding over $200,000 in costs). The argument that Go 10 Daddy seeks to be reimbursed for “deposition transcript costs that are not allowed” is another 11 exaggeration by Petronas. See Obj. at 2. For Items 1-13, no invoice reflects even a single charge 12 for miniscripts; only Item 6 contains a charge for ACSII condensing for a total of $16.00; and only 13 Item 10 contains expedited delivery charges (which, as discussed above, are properly recoverable). 14 See Exhibit C to Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs at 2-11. 15 Exemplification and Reproduction of Documents 16 Petronas’s insistence that it should not have to pay costs for reproduction and 17 exemplification of documents with respect to Items 14-36 is without merit. Under Civil Local 18 Rule 54-3(d)(2), “[t]he cost of reproducing disclosure or formal discovery documents when used 19 for any purpose in the case is allowable.” As indicated in the Itemized Bill of Costs and the 20 Fiorino Decl., charges for reproduction were incurred to reproduce discovery documents, several 21 of which were also reproduced for use in depositions. See Fiorino Decl. ¶ 8; see also Itemized Bill 22 of Costs, Items 14-36. Petronas (again) cites to no authority to back up its claim that Go Daddy 23 must go further and specifically identify each of the documents that were reproduced. Over the 24 course of the litigation Petronas served 57 document requests on Go Daddy, requiring the 25 Company to convert and reproduce documents from multiple databases to meet its discovery 26 obligations. The costs associated with reproduction of such discovery documents is recoverable 27 under Rule 54-3(d)(2). See Parrish v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, No. C 10-03200 WHA, 28 2011 WL 1362112, at *2 (N.D. Cal Apr. 11, 2011) (holding that costs incurred for “reproduction, GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO PETRONAS’S OBJECTIONS TO BILL OF COSTS Case No. 4:09-cv-05939-PJH -3- 1 scanning, [conversion,] and imaging of client documents ‘for review and potential production’ or 2 ‘for initial production’. . . are properly recoverable”). In addition, Go Daddy has made a 3 conscious effort to be conservative in seeking costs for reproduction by only submitting the 4 invoices of outside vendors for recovery. See Exhibit C to Bill of Costs at 15-36. Go Daddy has 5 foregone seeking the photocopying costs charged by its counsel Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & 6 Rosati, in order to specifically avoid seeking the cost of reproducing copies of motions, pleadings, 7 notices, and other routine case papers. 8 9 Petronas also improperly implies that Go Daddy has sought costs for “intellectual effort” in connection with the production of documents. See Obj. at 4. However, Petronas fails to cite to 10 any instances where Go Daddy has allegedly done so and relies on a case, Zuill v. Shanahan, 80 F. 11 3d 1366 (9th Cir. 1996), that predates the age of e-discovery and deals with the unrelated matter of 12 fees and copying costs from a copyright office. Furthermore, the “intellectual effort” that the 13 court in Zuill speaks of is a reference to attorney’s fees for preparation of a production (see id. at 14 1371). Here, Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs does not seek any recovery for its attorneys’ time in 15 reviewing or preparing documents for production. Petronas’s objections also misleadingly suggest 16 that Go Daddy has sought to recover oppressive costs for optical character recognition (“OCR”) 17 and metadata extraction in connection with reproducing documents. See Obj. at 3-4. However, for 18 Items 14-36 of the Itemized Bill of Costs, no invoice contains a single charge for metadata 19 extraction, and only a single invoice (for Item 21) has a $4.20 charge for OCR. 20 Preparation of Charts, Diagrams or Other Visual Aids 21 Petronas states that, under Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(5), the cost of preparing a chart, 22 diagram, or other visual aid is reimbursable where “reasonably necessary to assist the jury or the 23 Court in understanding the issues. . .” See Obj. at 5. Go Daddy agrees. This is the very reason the 24 demonstrative (Item 37) was prepared by Go Daddy and used in the successful December 7, 2011 25 26 motion to dismiss hearing: to assist the Court in understanding the complex litigation timeline of 27 this case against the backdrop of the concurrent in rem lawsuits brought by Petronas against the 28 disputed domain names. GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO PETRONAS’S OBJECTIONS TO BILL OF COSTS Case No. 4:09-cv-05939-PJH -4- 1 Go Daddy respectfully requests that the Items in its Bill of Costs be awarded. 2 3 4 Dated: March 16, 2012 5 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 6 By: /s/ Joseph G. Fiorino Joseph G. Fiorino 7 8 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant GODADDY.COM, INC. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO PETRONAS’S OBJECTIONS TO BILL OF COSTS Case No. 4:09-cv-05939-PJH -5-

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?