`
`Vv.
`
`CREE,INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`1:17CV687
`
`Defendant.
`
`TAXATION OF COSTS
`
`I.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`Defendant Cree, Inc. prevailing in this matter upon jury verdictfiled a Bill of
`
`Costs in the amountof $88,978.10 on August 11, 2023. Plaintiff filed a Motion and
`
`Memorandum for Disallowance of Costs on August 25, 2023. Defendant filed a Response
`
`to Plaintiff's Motion for Disallowance of Costs on September 1, 2023. On October3,
`
`2023, the undersigned Clerk of Court requested Defendant provide the details of copying
`
`charges requested in the Bill of Costs, and Defendantfiled an Affidavit in Support of
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`
` ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ
`
` ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿÿÿÿ
`%&!&' ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ()(*+,-*ÿ
` !!ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ"ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ#$$ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ
` .
`ÿÿÿÿÿ
` /ÿ1234567289ÿ:84;<237=6ÿ
`ÿ%&!&' ÿ>&&ÿ?ÿ@>&"Aÿÿ BCÿD &>ÿE@FÿGE>Hÿ"&>'? ÿ!&'ÿÿIÿF!ÿ
`FC Cÿÿ B&ÿDFE ÿF!ÿJ--K*-(LÿFÿMEAEC ÿ((ÿNLNOÿ !!ÿ!&'ÿÿF Fÿ'ÿ
`&DF>'EDÿ!F>ÿ%CFP?&ÿF!ÿFC CÿFÿMEAEC ÿNQÿNLNOÿ%&!&' ÿ!&'ÿÿ#&C@FC&ÿ
` Fÿ !!RCÿF Fÿ!F>ÿ%CFP?&ÿF!ÿFC CÿFÿS&@ &DT&>ÿ(ÿNLNOÿÿ? FT&>ÿOÿ
`NLNOÿ B&ÿE'&>CA&'ÿ&>UÿF!ÿFE> ÿ>&VE&C &'ÿ%&!&' ÿ@>F"'&ÿ B&ÿ'& CÿF!ÿ?F@HAÿ
`?B>A&Cÿ>&VE&C &'ÿÿ B&ÿIÿF!ÿFC Cÿ'ÿ%&!&' ÿ!&'ÿÿM!!'" ÿÿSE@@F> ÿF!ÿ
`%&!&' WCÿIÿF!ÿFC CÿFÿ? FT&>ÿ((ÿNLNOÿ
` /ÿ =89XYZYÿ
`
` /ÿ[7Z\8]95ÿ^8995=<5Yÿ
` !!ÿFTG&? Cÿ Fÿ B&ÿTÿF!ÿ?FC CÿFÿ B&ÿTCCÿ B ÿ ÿPFE'ÿT&ÿEGEC ÿ'ÿ
`&VE T&ÿ FÿP>'ÿHÿ?FC CÿT&?EC&ÿ !!ÿ?&C&'ÿ CÿF@&> FCÿVE' &'ÿ Cÿ
`CC& Cÿ'ÿ'F&CÿF ÿB"&ÿ B&ÿT Hÿ Fÿ@Hÿ B&ÿ?FC CÿBCÿ>AED& ÿ>C&Cÿ&VE T&ÿ
`?F?&>Cÿ B ÿAFÿT&HF'ÿÿ?&>URCÿE BF> Hÿÿ>EAÿFÿÿDF Fÿ!F>ÿTÿF!ÿ?FC CÿS&&ÿ
`
`Defendant's Bill of Costs on October 11, 2023.
`
`II.
`
`Analysis
`
`A. Equitable Challenges
`
`Plaintiff objects to the bill of costs on the basis that it would be unjust and
`
`inequitable to award any costs because Plaintiff ceased its operations, liquidatedits
`
`assets, and does not havethe ability to pay the costs. This argumentraises equitable
`
`concernsthat go beyond a clerk’s authority in ruling on a motionfor bill of costs. See
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 1 of 8
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 1of8
`
`
`
`Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 566, 573 (2012) (describing the taxation
`
`of costs by the clerk as a “clerical matter”). The bill of costs will be reviewed with the
`
`understanding that Defendantis a prevailing party andis entitled to seek taxation of
`
`costs. Plaintiff can raise its equitable issues by filing a motion for review of taxation of
`
`costs pursuant to LR 54.1(b)(2).
`
`B. Hearing and Trial Transcript Costs
`
`Defendant seeks taxation of an expedited transcript in the amount of $332.45 for a
`
`Motionto Strike Second Amended Infringement Contention hearing held on July 8, 2019.
`
`Defendant also requestions taxation oftranscripts in the amountof $5,208.20 forpretrial
`
`
`ÿ
`01ÿ&0%,%ÿ)2ÿ,-$ÿ&3$'4ÿ.%ÿ.ÿ5&3$'(&.3ÿ6.,,$'7"ÿ8-$ÿ)(33ÿ01ÿ&0%,%ÿ9(33ÿ)$ÿ'$:($9$#ÿ9(,-ÿ,-$ÿ
`;*#$'%,.*#(*+ÿ,-.,ÿ<$1$*#.*,ÿ(%ÿ.ÿ='$:.(3(*+ÿ=.',2ÿ.*#ÿ(%ÿ$*,(,3$#ÿ,0ÿ%$$4ÿ,./.,(0*ÿ01ÿ
`&0%,%ÿ>3.(*,(11ÿ&.*ÿ'.(%$ÿ(,%ÿ$?;(,.)3$ÿ(%%;$%ÿ)2ÿ1(3(*+ÿ.ÿ60,(0*ÿ10'ÿ'$:($9ÿ01ÿ,./.,(0*ÿ01ÿ
`&0%,%ÿ=;'%;.*,ÿ,0ÿ@AÿB!)""ÿ
`CDÿFGHIJKLÿHKNÿOIJHPÿOIHKQRIJSTÿUVQTQÿ
`ÿ<$1$*#.*,ÿ%$$4%ÿ,./.,(0*ÿ01ÿ.*ÿ$/=$#(,$#ÿ,'.*%&'(=,ÿ(*ÿ,-$ÿ.60;*,ÿ01ÿWBÿ10'ÿ.ÿ
`X0,(0*ÿ,0ÿ,'(4$ÿ$&0*#ÿY6$*#$#ÿZ*1'(*+$6$*,ÿ[0*,$*,(0*ÿ-$.'(*+ÿ-$3#ÿ0*ÿ\;32ÿ]ÿ !^ÿ
`<$1$*#.*,ÿ.3%0ÿ'$?;$%,(0*%ÿ,./.,(0*ÿ01ÿ,'.*%&'(=,%ÿ(*ÿ,-$ÿ.60;*,ÿ01ÿW ] ÿ10'ÿ='$,'(.3ÿ
`60,(0*ÿ-$.'(*+%ÿ #.2ÿ.*#ÿ$/=$#(,$#ÿ'.,$%"ÿ0=$*(*+ÿ%,.,$6$*,%ÿ#.(32ÿ'.,$"ÿ.*#ÿ,'(.3ÿ
`A$.3,(6$ÿ'0;+-ÿ#'.1,%ÿ
`_-$*ÿ'$?;$%,(*+ÿ&0%,%ÿ10'ÿ$/=$#(,$#ÿ,'.*%&'(=,%ÿ,-$ÿ'$?;$%,(*+ÿ=.',2ÿ%-0;3#ÿ-.:$ÿ.ÿ
`%;11(&($*,ÿ$/=3.*.,(0*ÿ0'ÿ.ÿ#$60*%,'.,$#ÿ*$$#ÿ10'ÿ$/=$#(,(*+ÿ,-$ÿ,'.*%&'(=,%ÿÿ`aaÿ
`bcdÿefghÿigj ÿBÿkÿ;==ÿB]ÿÿl<ÿX(&-ÿ!^]"mÿcahnhjÿ
` h
` ÿd ÿhj
`!^ÿkA<ÿ.,ÿB mÿÿ`jjtujÿigagÿctÿvÿ
`hÿw
` ]ÿ!!ÿX<ÿ>.!^B"ÿ<$1$*#.*,ÿ-.%ÿ*0,ÿ='0:(#$#ÿ.*2ÿ$/=3.*.,(0*ÿ10'ÿ9-2ÿ,-$ÿ
`$/=$#(,$#ÿ,'.*%&'(=,%ÿ9$'$ÿ*$$#$#ÿY%ÿ%;&-ÿ,-$ÿ&-.'+$%ÿ10'ÿ$/=$#(,$#ÿ.*#ÿ #.2ÿ
`,'.*%&'(=,%ÿ9(33ÿ*0,ÿ)$ÿ.3309$#ÿ
`<.(32ÿ&0=($%ÿ01ÿ,'(.3ÿ,'.*%&'(=,%ÿ.'$ÿ*0,ÿ*0'6.332ÿ,./.)3$ÿ;*3$%%ÿ,-$ÿ&0;',ÿ-.%ÿ+(:$*ÿ
`='(0'ÿ.=='0:.3ÿ@AÿB!&""(("ÿ<$1$*#.*,ÿ-.%ÿ*0,ÿ%-09*ÿ&0;',ÿ.=='0:.3ÿ10'ÿ0),.(*(*+ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
`motion hearings (3-day and expedited rates), opening statements (daily rate), and trial
`
`Realtime roughdrafts.
`
`Whenrequesting costs for expedited transcripts, the requesting party should have a
`
`sufficient explanation or a demonstrated need for expediting the transcripts. Hill v.
`
`BASF Wyandotte Corp., 547 F. Supp. 348, 352 (E.D. Mich. 1982); Alexander v. CIT
`
`Tech. Fin. Serv., Inc., 222 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1091 (N.D.Ill. 2002); Pan Am. Grain Mfg.,
`
`193 F.R.D. at 40; Harrisburg Coalition Against Ruining the Env’t v. Volpe, 65 F.R.D.
`
`608, 611 (M.D. Pa.1974). Defendant has not provided any explanation for why the
`
`expedited transcripts were needed. As such, the charges for expedited and 3-day
`
`transcripts will not be allowed.
`
`Daily copiesoftrial transcripts are not normally taxable unless the court has given
`
`prior approval. L.R. 54.1(c)(2)(i1). Defendant has not shown court approval for obtaining
`
`-2-
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 2 of 8
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`the daily transcripts for the opening statements. The daily transcripts of the opening
`
`statements will not be taxed.
`
`Realtimeservices are not listed as taxable items under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 or L.R.
`
`54.1. Without further explanation, the Realtime rough drafts look to be for the
`
`convenience of counsel. These chargesare not taxable.
`
`In summary, none of the $5,540.65 of hearing,trial transcript, and Realtime
`
`services will be taxed.
`
`C. Deposition Transcripts
`
`Defendant requests taxation of $51,928.62 for the costs of twenty-three
`
`depositions. Plaintiff objects to eight depositions where the deponents did nottestify or
`
`their depositions were not entered into evidence or used as evidence in support of a
`
`motion that was case dispositive (depositions of Watson, Edmond, Vollers, Athalye,
`
`Baldwin, Hill, Lenkszus, and Nelson). D.E. 392. Defendantreplied to the objection by
`
`noting that five of the depositions (Watson, Edmond, Vollers, Athalye, and Baldwin)
`
`were noticed by Plaintiff and three depositions (Hill, Lenkszus, and Nelson) were
`
`reasonably necessary “to evaluate the veracity of the inventor’s claim of inventorship.”
`
`D.E. 393.
`
`Copiesoftranscripts reasonably necessary for use in the case are allowable. 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1920(2). In assessing whethertranscript costs should be billed, the decision
`
`should be based upon whetherthe transcripts were “reasonably necessary for preparation
`
` ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
` ÿ ÿÿ
`&'"ÿ( ÿ ÿ
`
`+
`)ÿ
` ÿ ÿÿ ÿ
`./ÿ1234567648ÿ:;<85=;6375ÿ
`>
` ÿ
`
`ÿÿ
` ÿ
`
`)ÿ
`F
`ÿ
`
`)ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ@
`
`ÿ
`ÿK ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ
`>Cÿ#ÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ
` ÿ!ÿ"#$BJÿ+
` ÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ *
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
`for trial at the time they were taken.” LaVay Corp. v. Dominion Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n.,
`
`-3-
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 3 of 8
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`830 F.2d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 1987). Defendant’s reply sufficiently explains whyall eight
`
`depositions were reasonably necessary. Plaintiff's objection to the eight transcripts will
`
`not reduce the taxation ofcosts.
`
`Defendant provided supporting invoicesforall transcript charges except for
`
`Michael Watson.In lieu of an invoice, Defendant submitted a bank record showing
`
`electronic paymentto a court reporting firm in the amount of $1,182.25. Because this
`
`record is not sufficient for review, the taxable costs will be reduced by $1,182.25.
`
`All depositions includecosts of transcripts and videography. Plaintiff objected to
`
`the videography costs, and Defendanthas not explained why videography wasrequired in
`
`addition to the transcripts. A prevailing party can recoverthe costs of transcripts or
`
`videotaping depositions. Cherry v. Champion Int’l Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 448 (4th Cir.
`
`1999). To recoverthe costs of both transcripts and video, the prevailing party must show
`
`that both were necessary. Jd. at 449. Defendant has not shown whytranscripts and
`
`videography were necessary. Accordingly, all videography invoices will be disallowed,
`
`except for that of Michael Watson whosetranscript was previously disallowed. The
`
` ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
` % %ÿ#ÿ%&ÿ!ÿ' ÿ%&(! %ÿ %ÿ ÿ$ ÿ ! ÿ#ÿ
`% ÿ !ÿ ÿ " %ÿ%ÿ!% ÿ
` ÿ%) ÿ % $ÿ)%!ÿ%ÿÿ ! ÿ!$ÿ"! ÿ%ÿ
`*!ÿ+ %ÿ,ÿ ÿ%ÿÿ)%!ÿ ÿ &- ÿÿ&.ÿ!% ÿ%#$ÿ
`! %!ÿ- ÿ %ÿÿ!% ÿ% $ÿ-ÿÿ ÿ-% ÿ%ÿ/
`ÿ0! ÿ ÿ
`!% ÿÿ% ÿ ! ÿ%ÿ)#ÿ ÿ "&ÿ!% ÿ#ÿ&ÿ ! ÿ&ÿ/
`ÿ
`1ÿ % %ÿ! ÿ!% ÿ%ÿ ! ÿ ÿ) %$ÿ' ÿ%&(! ÿ %ÿ
` ÿ) %$ÿ!% ÿ ÿ ÿÿ% ÿ" ÿ#ÿ) %$ÿ#ÿ2 ÿÿ
` %ÿ %ÿ ÿ ! ÿ1ÿ)$ÿ ÿ!ÿ!%)ÿ ÿ!% ÿ%ÿ ! ÿ%ÿ
`) % $ÿ % %ÿ345667ÿ9:ÿ34;<=>?@ÿA@BCDÿ3?6=:ÿ Eÿ ÿÿ ÿ
`ÿF%ÿ!%)ÿ ÿ!% ÿ%ÿ&% ÿ ! ÿ ÿ) %ÿ ÿ)$ÿ ÿ- ÿ%#ÿ
` ÿ&% ÿ#ÿ!ÿAG:ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ% ÿ%#ÿ#ÿ ! ÿ ÿ
`) %$ÿ#ÿ!ÿ1!!% $ÿÿ) %$ÿ)%!ÿ#ÿ&ÿ %# ÿ
`"! ÿ%ÿ ÿ%ÿ*!ÿ+ %ÿ#%ÿ ! ÿ#ÿ)% ÿ %# ÿFÿ
`) %$ÿ)%!ÿ % ÿ/
` ÿ ÿ#ÿ&ÿ% ÿ&ÿ ÿ+ %ÿ) %ÿ%ÿ/ÿ
`#!ÿ ÿÿÿ/
`ÿ ! %ÿÿ ÿ&ÿ%ÿ!% ÿ
`Fÿ)%!ÿ! ÿ)ÿ% ÿ!$ÿÿ %ÿ %ÿ ÿ!% ÿ%ÿ ÿ % %ÿ
` ! ÿ ÿ) %$ÿFÿ!% ÿ! ÿ %ÿ ÿ .$ÿ%ÿ % %ÿ
`%#&ÿÿ!ÿ%& ÿ%ÿ ÿÿ ÿ $ %ÿ%-ÿ! ÿ%ÿ ÿ
`% Hÿ !ÿÿ ÿ!$ÿ%ÿ%ÿ ! ÿ%ÿ ÿ % %ÿIJÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
`videography invoices total $15,284.97 and will be offset by the Watson video of $330.00,
`
`whichresults in a $14,954.97 reduction in the bill of costs.
`
`The invoices include several other charges in addition to the cost of the deposition
`
`transcripts and videography. The costs incident to the taking of depositions (when
`
`allowable as necessarily obtained for use in thelitigation) normally include only the
`
`reporter's attendance fee and charge for one transcript of the deposition. L.R.
`
`-4-
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 4 of 8
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
` ÿ
`
`ÿÿ ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ !"#$$!ÿ
`ÿ%
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ$))ÿ
`ÿ ** ÿ%ÿ+% ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!, ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
` *ÿ -
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ,))ÿ
`ÿ-
`ÿ%
` *ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1))ÿ
`ÿ ÿ
` *ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ,))))ÿ
`ÿ&
`ÿ
`ÿ&% ÿ%ÿ 4 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1)ÿ
`ÿÿÿ
`ÿ
` #"$!,5ÿ
`ÿ
`
` #"$!,5ÿ ÿ%
`78ÿ:;;<ÿ>?@ÿ7A<BCD<;E;?F<ÿGHDÿIDA?FA?Jÿ
`
`
` 3ÿ
`ÿL
`O
`Q6ÿ
`
`%3
`
`*6 ÿÿÿ
`TÿUÿ#$) ÿ+
`ÿVWXYYZ[ÿ]^ÿ_`aZbcYde"ÿ1!ÿ'ÿ$$"ÿ$ ÿfÿgÿ##1ÿf
`**
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
` ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿÿ
` ÿÿ ÿ!"#$%%&'(ÿ)*+ÿ,ÿ
`-ÿ)ÿ..)(ÿ...ÿ/0ÿ1ÿ)22)3ÿ0
`ÿ
`ÿ4ÿ
`ÿ5
`ÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿ ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ6ÿ755ÿÿ8
` ÿ955ÿ ÿÿ ÿ:;*2.*ÿ
`<=ÿ?@ABCDDÿFCCDÿ
`0
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿÿ:;+222ÿÿ9
` ÿ ÿG5
`ÿ H
` ÿ
`ÿ:)++ÿÿ
` ÿÿ9
` ÿ9ÿÿ
`ÿ
`
` ÿÿ
`ÿ
`
`
`J3ÿ0
`ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ
`ÿG5
`K ÿ H
`ÿL
` ÿ ÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿ);ÿM-8ÿNÿO;)Oÿ6ÿ5
` ÿ ÿÿ
` (ÿ9ÿ
`
`ÿÿ
`ÿ
`
` (ÿ
`ÿ9
` ÿ9
`ÿ ÿ
`RS&%Tÿ ÿRUVW%&U(ÿOXYÿ,Z0ÿ+O2(ÿ+OXÿ/J0ÿ[
`_a&UÿbU'cÿ\`(ÿ+Y;ÿ,ÿ-ÿ)YY(ÿ*2+ÿ/0-8ÿOY;.3ÿ
`ÿ8ÿOY;3ÿ
`d94(ÿ ÿÿ9
` ÿ9ÿP
`ÿ
`
`ÿÿÿÿÿ9ÿ4ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`
`ÿ
`K ÿ H
`ÿ
`955ÿÿ
`ÿ755ÿÿ8
` ÿ ÿ:)++22ÿ
`F=ÿ<eCfgh@i@jkA@lBÿkBmÿnlgo@BpÿnlDADÿ
`0
`ÿ
` ÿ:)Y(;);.2ÿÿ5
`ÿ
` ÿ6 ÿ
`ÿ
`5 ÿ:O();X+ÿÿ5
`ÿ
` ÿÿ 4 ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
` H
` ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿÿ
` ÿ
`
`Lÿ
` ÿ ÿ
`ÿ08ÿ8
`ÿ8
`ÿÿI
`ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`ÿ
`
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ
`5
`Qÿ\$]ÿ` cÿssRÿ ÿt$u `cÿ\` (ÿvÿ)2)O )OOO(ÿ)2))ÿLwÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`2824675 at *4 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2022). That court’s reasoning will be followed here,
`
`and the $16,268.75 of graphic design charges will not be allowed.
`
`Defendant’s bill of costs includes $13,559.65 for blowback copies, file folders,
`
`notebooks, and technical time. Plaintiff disagreed with allowing these printing charges
`
`claiming they were notidentified for particular use andtrial exhibit copies were only for
`
`use of counsel. On October 3, 2023, the undersigned Clerk of Court requested Defendant
`
`to provide the details of these charges. D.E. 394. In response, Defendant provided
`
`documentation showing that 231 exhibits were admitted into evidence, which were
`
`comprised of 1,616 color pages of evidence at a cost of $0.65 per page. D.E. 395.
`
`Defendant provided these exhibit copies to the witnesses, Court staff, and opposing
`
`counsel, which hadatotal cost of $3,151.20. Jd.
`
`Copying costs can be taxed if they were “necessarily obtained for use in the case.”
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Copies “obtained merely for the convenience of counsel” are not
`
`taxable. Scallet v. Rosenblum, 176 F.R.D. 522, 524 (W.D. Va. 1997). Whether copies
`
`“are properly reimbursable rather than incurred simply as a ‘convenience’ to counsel”
`
`needs to be demonstrated by the party requesting taxation of costs. Simmons v. O’Malley,
`
`235 F. Supp. 2d 442, 444 (D. Md. 2002). Defendant has shown that the copies in the
`
` ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ ÿ%& ÿ$ÿ!'ÿ ! ÿ! ÿ"ÿ ÿ# ÿ" ÿ
`( $ ÿ#ÿ$ÿ ÿ ÿ%&)*ÿ$ÿ#"#+ÿ' ÿ$ ÿ$ ÿ
` #+ÿ ÿ ÿ , ÿ- $$ÿ! ÿ" ÿ" !ÿ ÿ' !ÿ! ÿ
`, !ÿ ÿ" ÿ ÿ $ ÿ$ÿ' ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ .# ÿ' ÿ" ÿ ÿ$ÿ
` ÿ$ÿ ÿ/ ÿ/ # ÿ)ÿ )ÿ ÿ ! ÿ +ÿ$ÿ ÿ 0 ÿ( $ ÿ
` ÿ'1 ÿ ÿ ÿ$ÿ ÿ! ÿ(2ÿ)*ÿ3 ÿ ' ÿ( $ ÿ'1 ÿ
`, ÿ" !ÿ ÿ )&ÿ .# ÿ" ÿ, ÿ ÿ 1 ÿ"ÿ" ÿ
`,' ÿ$ÿ&&ÿÿ'! ÿ$ÿ 1 ÿ ÿÿ ÿ$ÿ%ÿ' ÿ'! ÿ(2ÿ)*ÿ
`( $ ÿ'1 ÿ ÿ .# ÿ' ÿ ÿ ÿ" ÿ ÿ $$ÿ ÿ'' !ÿ
` ÿ"ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ$ÿ%)&& ÿ45ÿ
`' !ÿ ÿ ÿ# ÿ . ÿ$ÿ ÿ" ÿ6 ÿ# ÿ$ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 7ÿÿ
` ÿ89ÿ:ÿ&* ÿ' ÿ6# ÿ, ÿ$ÿ ÿ 1 ÿ$ÿ 7ÿ ÿ ÿ
` .# ;ÿ=>?@@ABÿC;ÿDEFAGH@IJÿ&ÿ
`6 ÿ'' ÿ ,## ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ,'ÿÿÿN 1 ÿ ÿ 7ÿ
` ÿ ÿ# ÿ , ÿ#ÿ ÿ' ÿ 0 !ÿ . ÿ$ÿ ÿ=OJJEGFÿC;ÿPQR?@@ASÿ
` )ÿ
`, ÿ$ÿ%)& ÿ" ÿ ÿ#ÿ" ÿ ÿ $$ÿ ÿ'' !ÿ ÿ ÿ" ÿ
` ÿ# ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ%)& ÿ$ÿ' !ÿ ÿ'ÿ%&*&ÿ$ÿ . ÿ
`Uÿ , ÿ%)& ÿ"ÿ# ÿ" ÿ( $ ÿÿ ÿ" ÿ ÿ , !ÿ' !ÿ
` ÿ$ÿ%& ÿ%&)*ÿ ÿ%)& ÿ ÿ ÿ%&*&ÿ" ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
`amountof $3,150.20 were used by witnesses, Court staff, and opposing counsel and were
`
`necessarily obtainedin this case. The $3,150.20 of copying costs plus $189.01 of taxes
`
`(6% times $3,150.20) will be allowed. Defendant has not shown the remaining copying
`
`costs of $10,220.44 ($13,559.65 less $3,150.20 and less $189.01) were necessarily
`
`-7-
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 7 of 8
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`obtained for use in the case and will be disallowed.
`
`Ill.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In summary,the following costs will be disallowed.
`
`All other costs in Defendant’s Bill of Costs are properly taxable. Reducing the
`
`total requested costs of $88,978.10 by the $58,515.67 of disallowed costs results in a
`
`balance of $30,462.43, which will be taxed against Plaintiff and includedin the
`
`judgment.
`
`This the 18 day of October, 2023.
`
`
`Hearingtranscripts, trial transcripts, Realtime services
`$5,540.65
`Unsupported Watson Deposition Transcript
`1,182.25
`Videography Charges
`14,954.97
`Non-allowable deposition transcript charges
`9,263.18
`Printing costs
`830.43
`
`Non-appearing witnesses
`255.00
`Graphic design charges
`16,268.75
`Copies not shown to be necessa
`10,220.44
`Total Disallowed Costs
`$58,515.67
`
`
`ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿÿ
` ÿ !!
`
`ÿÿÿ
`%
`. &&
`ÿ/ ÿ0 & ÿ1
`2#233*ÿ
`4
` $
`2+#6*+67ÿ
`8 ÿ
` & ÿ
`6#3-92ÿ
`:
`9,+9ÿ
`8 &&
`3**,,ÿ
`;
` $ÿ
`2-#3-7*ÿ
`
`
`5 & ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
`2,#33,++ÿ
`ÿÿÿ1 ÿ0
`ÿ5 ÿ
`)*#*2*-7ÿ
`ÿ<ÿ
`=ÿ>ÿ ÿ5 ÿ
` $ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿ)#672,ÿ"ÿ ÿ)*#*2*-7ÿ ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿ
` ÿ ÿ)9,#+-3+9#ÿÿÿ ÿ?
`ÿ$ÿ:ÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿÿ ÿ
`A
`$! ÿ1ÿ ÿ2ÿ
`"ÿ ÿB
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCCÿD ÿEÿ>
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ5
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
`/s/ John S. Brubaker
`Clerk of Court
`
`-8-
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 8 of 8
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 396 Filed 10/18/23 Page 8 of 8
`
`