Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 829

ORDER requiring additional information regarding Adobe's 816 MOTION For Review Of Clerk's Order Taxing Costs re 814 Costs Taxed . Response due by 6/3/2015. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 5/20/2015. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DIGITAL REG OF TEXAS, LLC,

Case No. 12-cv-01971-CW (KAW)

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,
Defendant.

ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REGARDING
ADOBE'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF
CLERK'S ORDER TAXING COSTS
Re: Dkt. No. 816

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Adobe’s motion for review of the clerk’s order taxing costs was referred to the undersigned

14

for report and recommendation. Upon review of the moving papers, the Court orders Adobe to

15

file a declaration with copies of all receipts and invoices attached as exhibits. The receipts should

16

be organized by category and be accompanied by a chart that lists all of the receipts. Deposition

17

transcript receipts should be organized by deponent, so that the original transcripts are grouped

18

with the receipts for the copies (i.e. videotapes or ASCII).

19

The missing receipt referenced by the Clerk in the Bill of Costs is for the August 19, 2014

20

entry for “trial transcripts,” in the amount of $9,171.27. That amount was disallowed because the

21

receipt was not attached. That a copy of the receipt may have been attached to a subsequent filing

22

does not remedy Adobe’s failure to submit the receipt with the original bill of costs or the instant

23

motion. Indeed, either an errata or supplemental declaration should have been filed to include the

24

original receipt. Notwithstanding, the receipt Adobe cites to in its motion does not appear to be

25

the missing receipt, and the undersigned declines to scour the record in search of it. (See Mot.,

26

Dkt. No. 816 at 2 (citing Dkt. No. 803-9).) If Adobe wishes to have the missing receipt

27

considered, it must be attached to the supplemental declaration.

28

Additionally, if the parties have stipulated to splitting any taxable costs, namely trial

1

transcripts, written confirmation of such an agreement should be provided. See Civil L.R. 54-3(b).

2

Adobe may also wish to revisit its challenge regarding the taxable costs of deposition

3

transcripts. As Adobe acknowledges, pursuant to the Local Rules, a prevailing party is only

4

entitled to the cost of one original transcript and one copy. Civil L.R. 54-3(c)(1). The one copy

5

may be in text or another format (E-Transcript, ASCII, video, rough transcript, etc.). Id. In

6

practice, the Clerk generally taxes costs for the original and the most expensive copy, and denies

7

the rest as more copies than are permitted under the Local Rules. For example, if John Doe is

8

deposed and the deposition is videotaped, the prevailing party may recover the cost for the original

9

transcript and the videotape, but not the ASCII, E-Transcript or rough versions, because the video

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

is more expensive. Also, hyperlinking is not taxable.
Furthermore, the attendance fee of a court reporter is only allowable if the witness fails to
appear. Civil L.R. 54-3(c)(5).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides that “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or

14

a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney's fees—should be allowed to the

15

prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Generally, paralegal time is recoverable through a

16

motion for attorneys’ fees. Here, Adobe seeks payment for paralegal fees allegedly incurred as

17

exemplification costs for the creation of demonstratives used at trial. (Mot. at 2.) While the clerk

18

taxed costs for the third party vendor, she declined to tax costs for the paralegal work. Adobe has

19

provided no legal support for its request to recover internal paralegal fees for exemplification

20

costs, but claims that the hourly rates charged by its paralegals are reasonable. (Reply, Dkt. No.

21

822 at 5.) Thus, Adobe must provide authority for performing a lodestar analysis in connection

22

with a bill of costs. Otherwise, the Court will decline to perform a lodestar analysis, and will not

23

recommend that the paralegal fees be taxed.

24

Accordingly, if Adobe still wishes the Court to review the bill of costs, Adobe is ordered to

25

submit an amended motion on or before June 3, 2015, as well as a supplemental declaration with

26

all of the receipts attached. In light of the guidance provided above, should Adobe wish to reduce

27

the amount of taxable costs sought, it is invited to do so. If an amended motion is filed, Digital

28

Reg shall be permitted to file an opposition within 14 days pursuant to a normal briefing schedule.
2

1

The Court will not, however, entertain any challenges to taxable costs already awarded. Adobe

2

may file a reply.
Alternatively, if Adobe decides to only seek taxation of the missing receipt and other costs

3
4

that Digital Reg had agreed to pay, it may file a supplemental declaration with that information

5

attached and state that it is withdrawing the remainder of its motion. This shall also be filed on or

6

before June 3, 2015. Should this occur, Digital Reg will not be permitted a response.
Upon receipt of all submissions, the Court will determine whether a hearing is necessary or

7
8

if the matter may be resolved without further briefing and oral argument under Civil Local Rule

9

7-1(b).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 20, 2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3