Chang et al v. Virgin Mobile USA LLC et al

Filing 71

Plaintiff's Objection to 70 Defendant's Bill of Costs by Susan Chang, Justin Ho-Wee Wong. (Zehl, Ryan) Modified on 2/2/2009 (skt).

Download PDF
SIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SUSAN CHANG, AS NEXT FRIEND OF ALISON CHANG, A MINOR, AND JUSTIN HO-WEE WONG, PLAINTIFFS VS. VIRGIN MOBILE PTY LTD., DEFENDANT. § § § § § § § § § § § § § CA No. 3:07-cv-1767 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S BILL OF COSTS Plaintiffs file this motion objecting to the bill of costs Defendants submitted to the Clerk on January 28, 2008. Taxation of costs is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1920. Section 2—the only section relevant here—allows a prevailing party to recover “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.”1 As the Fifth Circuit recognized in Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., “[t]here is no provision for videotapes of depositions.”2 Not only is there no statutory basis for awarding Defendant any costs associated with recording the deposition, but they also are unable to demonstrate that a videotape, in addition to the transcript, was “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” The only reason the proceeding was videotaped in the first place is that Defendant’s corporate representatives were unable to fly to Houston—even at Plaintiffs’ expense. 1 28 U.S.C. §1920 (2). 2 135 F.3d 1041, 1049 (5th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). HOUDMS/223999.1 Defendant, therefore, is only entitled to the costs it incurred in obtaining a copy of the written transcript from National Court Reporters, which as evidenced by the invoice, is $2,417.85. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ryan H. Zehl____________________ Ryan H. Zehl State Bar No. 24047166 Fitts Zehl, LLP 5065 Westheimer Rd., Suite 700 Houston, Texas 77056 (713) 491-6064 (telephone) (713) 583-1492 (facsimile) Mark W. Romney State Bar No. 17225750 Shannon, Gracey, Ratliff & Miller, LLP 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 245-3062 (telephone) (214) 245-3097 (facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS -2Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Reset Rule 26(f) Conference CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 28 day of January 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the Court’s electronic case filing system. The system sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to the following attorneys of record, all of whom have consented to accept this Notice as service of the document: Lisa H. Meyerhoff Baker & McKenzie LLP 2001 Ross Ave. Dallas, Texas 75201 /s/ Ryan H. Zehl______________________ Ryan H. Zehl CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b), I certify that on February 01, 2008, I had a telephone conversation with Defendant’s counsel Myall S. Hawkins who stated that Defendant was unopposed to this Motion. /s/ Ryan H. Zehl__________ Ryan H. Zehl -3Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Reset Rule 26(f) Conference

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?