Grupo Petrotemex, S.A. DE C.V. et al v. Polymetrix AG

Filing 870

ORDER OVERRULING in part and SUSTAINING in part 866 Plaintiffs' Objection to Bill of Costs, and GRANTING Defendant $42,846.60 in costs (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 4/5/2021. (avt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Grupo Petrotemex, S.A. de C.V., and
DAK Americas LLC,

Case No. 16-cv-02401 (SRN/HB)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.
Polymetrix AG,
Defendant.

Alexander Englehart, Eric W. Schweibenz, J. Derek Mason, and John F. Presper,
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, 1940 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA
22314; and Margaret Rudolph, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, 60 South Sixth Street,
Suite 3100, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Plaintiffs.
Bernard E. Nodzon, Jr. and Lauren Marie Williams Steinhauser, Faegre Drinker Biddle
& Reath LLP, 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Igor
Shoiket, Stephen H. Youtsey, and Todd A. Noah, Dergosits & Noah LLP, One
Embarcadero Center, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA 94111, for Defendant.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Objection to Bill of Costs [Doc. No. 864] filed
by Plaintiffs Grupo Petrotemex, S.A. de C.V. and DAK Americas, LLC (collectively,
“GPT/DAK”). Based on a review of the files, submissions, and proceedings herein, and for
the reasons below, the Court OVERRULES the Objection in part, SUSTAINS the
Objection in part, and GRANTS Defendant Polymetrix AG $42,846.60 in costs.

1

I.

DISCUSSION
On February 4, 2021, this Court granted Polymetrix’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and entered judgment in its favor. (Mem. Op. & Order [Doc. No. 859]; Judgment
[Doc. No. 860].) Subsequently, Polymetrix submitted a Bill of Costs [Doc. No. 864]
requesting the Clerk of Court to tax $300 in Fees of the Clerk, and $45,899.70 in
transcription costs for various hearings and depositions conducted during this litigation.
GPT/DAK objected to the claim for transcription costs, on three bases. (See Obj. to Bill of
Costs [Doc. No. 866].) First, GPT/DAK argue that the claimed transcription costs include
non-taxable costs like delivery charges and credit-card processing fees. Second, GPT/DAK
assert that Polymetrix included fees for expedited processing of the transcripts, without an
explanation for why expedited processing was necessary. Finally, GPT/DAK protested that
the costs presented for the transcription of several depositions were not itemized, and
argued that these costs should either be wholly excluded or reduced by 30% to account for
the likelihood that non-taxable costs were included in the figure. In total, GPT/DAK
request that the Court deny $34,936.75 or, alternatively, $12,104.43 of Polymetrix’s
claimed transcription costs.
In response to GPT/DAK’s Objection, Polymetrix conceded that its Bill of Costs
includes $2,055.91 in non-taxable delivery, credit-card processing, and real-time
transcription fees. (Response to Obj. to Bill of Costs [Doc. No. 867], at 2.) In addition,
Polymetrix explained the need for its expedited processing costs, and submitted invoices
itemizing the transcription costs for several depositions. (See Noah Decl. [Doc. No. 868].)

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) permits a district court to tax costs in favor
of a prevailing party, and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines which expenses incurred during
litigation may be taxed pursuant to Rule 54(d). “Under § 1920, a judge or court clerk ‘may
tax as costs’ fees of the clerk and marshal, fees for printed or electronically recorded
transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case, fees and disbursements for printing and
witnesses, fees for copies of necessary papers, docket fees, and compensation of court
appointed experts and interpreters.” Stanley v. Cottrell, Inc., 784 F.3d 454, 464 (8th Cir.
2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(1)-(6)). The Court has “substantial discretion in awarding
costs to a prevailing party.” Zotos v. Lindbergh Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 356, 363 (8th Cir.
1997) (quoting Richmond v. Southwire Co., 980 F.2d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1992)).
Where Polymetrix’s claimed transcription costs include a surcharge for expedited
processing, Polymetrix must adequately explain the need for expedition. See Delgado v.
Hajicek, No. CIV.07-2186 RHK/RLE, 2009 WL 2366558, at *3 (D. Minn. July 30, 2009)
(citations omitted) (“Fees for expedited transcripts are not taxable absent some explanation
why expedition was necessary.”); D. Minn. Bill of Costs Guide 6 (2015),
https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/forms/Bill-of-Costs-Guide.pdf (noting that
the “[c]osts of expedited transcripts produced solely for the convenience of counsel” are
not taxable, and “[t]he requesting party must provide an explanation as to why it was
necessary to have any transcript produced in an expedited manner.”). In addition, many of
the invoices submitted by Polymetrix include costs for rough ASCII transcripts. “ASCII
fees associated with the quick delivery of a rough transcript . . . are generally ‘incurred
only for the convenience of counsel and thus are not properly awarded,’” but “ASCII fees
3

II.

CONCLUSION
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Objection to Bill of Costs [Doc. No. 864] is OVERRULED in
part and SUSTAINED in part; and
2. The Court GRANTS Defendant $42,846.60 in costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2021

s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge

12