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).

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
[phone] (telephone)
[phone] (facsimile)
[e-mail]
Mark W. Romney
State Bar No. 17225750
Shannon, Gracey, Ratliff
& Miller, LLP
500 N. Akard Street, Suite 2500
Dallas, Texas 75201
[phone] (telephone)
[phone] (facsimile)
[e-mail]
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