throbber
OPTOLUM,INC.,
`
`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

` ÿ
`
 ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿ
`%&!&' ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ()(*+,-*ÿ
` !!ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ"ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ#$$ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ
` .
ÿ
ÿ
 ÿ
`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 $5,208.20 forpretrial
`
` 
`ÿ
ÿÿ  ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ !"ÿ#$%&'()(*+ÿ,-$ÿ,./.,(0*ÿ
`01ÿ&0%,%ÿ)2ÿ,-$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*$$#ÿ10'ÿ$/=$#(,(*+ÿ,-$ÿ,'.*%&'(=,%ÿÿ`aaÿ
ÿ
`bcdÿefghÿigj ÿBÿkÿ;==ÿB]ÿÿl<ÿX(&-ÿ!^]"mÿcahnhjÿ
ÿio ÿ
` h
` ÿd ÿhj
ÿo ÿÿkÿ;==ÿ#ÿ! ]ÿ! ^!ÿp<ÿZ33ÿ "mÿÿcq ÿrjÿs ÿ
`!^ÿkA<ÿ.,ÿB mÿÿ`jjtujÿigagÿctÿvÿ
`hÿw
xÿ
ÿygahÿÿkA<ÿ
` ]ÿ!!ÿX<ÿ>.!^B"ÿ<$1$*#.*,ÿ-.%ÿ*0,ÿ='0:(#$#ÿ.*2ÿ$/=3.*.,(0*ÿ10'ÿ9-2ÿ,-$ÿ
`$/=$#(,$#ÿ,'.*%&'(=,%ÿ9$'$ÿ*$$#$#ÿY%ÿ%;&-ÿ,-$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 ÿ

ÿ  
ÿÿ
`ÿ 
  ÿÿ ÿ

ÿ
`  
ÿ ÿ
 ÿÿ ÿ
` ÿ   ÿ ÿ
 ÿ  ÿ ÿ  ÿ  ÿ
 ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ"#$ÿ ÿ%ÿ
`&'"ÿ(  ÿ  ÿ 
 
)ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ  ÿ *ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ
`


ÿÿ
 ÿ ÿ  ÿ ÿ
 ÿ  ÿ
`+
ÿ 
`)ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ,&)&'$-&ÿÿ 
)ÿ  ÿ 
  )ÿ
ÿ ÿ
`   ÿ ÿÿ ÿ
`./ÿ1234567648ÿ:;<85=;6375ÿ
`>

ÿ ? ÿ  
ÿÿ,&")#-ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ 

`  ÿ
`  
ÿ@ 
ÿA ÿ ÿ ÿ  
ÿ ÿ ÿ

ÿÿ
 ÿ  
`ÿ ÿ
`  ÿ  
ÿ ÿ
 ÿ
 ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ  ÿÿÿ
` 
ÿ  ÿ ÿ ÿ   ÿB  
ÿÿ( 
)ÿC
)ÿD  )ÿE 
`)ÿ
`F 
)ÿG )ÿ%
* H )ÿ
ÿI 
Jÿ>Cÿ#ÿ>

ÿ  ÿ ÿ ÿA 
ÿ
`ÿ
`
 
ÿ  ÿÿÿ ÿ  
ÿB( 
)ÿC
)ÿD  )ÿE 
`)ÿ
ÿF 
Jÿ
` ÿ
 ÿ
`ÿ@ 
ÿ
ÿ  ÿ  
ÿBG )ÿ%
* H )ÿ
ÿI 
Jÿ ÿ
`  

`ÿ
 
`ÿK ÿ  ÿ ÿ 
`ÿÿ ÿ

 L ÿ ÿÿ

 Mÿ
`>Cÿ#ÿÿ  ÿÿ 
  ÿ  

`ÿ
 
`ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ  ÿÿ
` ÿ!ÿ"#$BJÿ+
ÿ  
ÿ  ÿ 
  ÿ ÿ  ÿÿ )ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
`  ÿÿ ÿ
ÿ  ÿ ÿ 
  ÿ ÿK  

`ÿ
 
`ÿ ÿ   
ÿ
` ÿ  ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 
`ÿ ÿ *
MÿNOPOQÿSTUVWÿXWÿYTZ[\[T\ÿ]^_Wÿ`OXWÿaÿNTO\ÿbccd\W)ÿ
`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 $1,182.25.
`
`All depositions includecosts of transcripts and videography. Plaintiff objected to
`
`the videography costs, and Defendanthas not explained why videography wasrequired in
`
`addition to the transcripts. A prevailing party can recoverthe costs of transcripts or
`
`videotaping depositions. Cherry v. Champion Int’l Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 448 (4th Cir.
`
`1999). To recoverthe costs of both transcripts and video, the prevailing party must show
`
`that both were necessary. Jd. at 449. Defendant has not shown whytranscripts and
`
`videography were necessary. Accordingly, all videography invoices will be disallowed,
`
`except for that of Michael Watson whosetranscript was previously disallowed. The
`
` ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ
 ÿÿ ÿ  ÿÿ ! ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ$ 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
`) % $ÿ % %ÿ345667ÿ9:ÿ34;<=>?@ÿA@BCDÿ3?6=: ÿ Eÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
 ÿÿ
`ÿF%ÿ!%)ÿ ÿ!% ÿ%ÿ&% ÿ ! ÿ ÿ) % ÿ ÿ)$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
#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
`
ÿ  ÿ 
ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ !"#$$!ÿ
`ÿ%
ÿ&'ÿ(%
ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ$))ÿ
`ÿ ** ÿ%ÿ+% ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!, ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
` *ÿ - 
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ,))ÿ
`ÿ-
 ÿ' 
./  %
0ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ$1)))ÿ
`ÿ%

%ÿ
` *ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1))ÿ
`ÿ  ÿ
` *ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ,))))ÿ
`ÿ&
 ÿ2ÿ3* 
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ,$))ÿ
`ÿ


ÿ3ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ,1!#ÿ
`ÿ&% ÿ%ÿ 4 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1)ÿ
`ÿÿÿ
`ÿ
` #"$!,5ÿ
`ÿ
`
ÿ( ÿ ÿÿ ÿ
ÿ
%
%ÿ6ÿ  "# #1ÿ ÿ4 %
* 6ÿ 
ÿ%ÿ
` #"$!,5ÿ ÿ% 
ÿ *ÿ

%ÿÿÿ
`78ÿ:;;<ÿ>?@ÿ7A<BCD<;E;?F<ÿGHDÿIDA?FA?Jÿ
`
`
ÿ( ÿ ÿÿ %
ÿÿ 4 
ÿ ÿ 5,) ,ÿ 
%ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ&
ÿK*ÿ
` 3ÿ
`ÿL
ÿ
ÿ ÿM"ÿÿ ÿ$",,)ÿNÿ%ÿ 
ÿ%ÿ1")ÿ*
ÿ&  ÿ
`O

%ÿÿ
ÿÿÿ
ÿ %

%ÿ
%ÿ
*%
%ÿ ÿ ÿ
P
ÿÿ
`Q6ÿ 
%ÿ*
 6ÿÿ 
ÿ  ÿ 3ÿ "ÿ % ÿ
ÿ*  ÿ ÿ ÿ
`
0  ÿ ÿ
ÿ3 
%ÿÿ
ÿRÿ ÿÿ
P

%ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0  ÿ

ÿ
`%3 
%ÿ ÿ
ÿ
%Sÿ-ÿ,#,ÿ+
4
"ÿ
%ÿ% %ÿÿ*4 %
ÿ 
ÿ%
 ÿ
`
`*6 ÿÿÿ
ÿ0
%ÿ ÿ
6ÿ

ÿQ

 6ÿ 
%ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
Sÿ$5ÿ
`TÿUÿ#$) ÿ+
4
"ÿ*
ÿQ 
%ÿ3

6ÿ ÿ
ÿ4


ÿ ÿ
Sÿ
ÿ
`ÿVWXYYZ[ÿ]^ÿ_`aZbcYde"ÿ1!ÿ'ÿ$$"ÿ$ ÿfÿgÿ##1ÿf

ÿ*
ÿQ
ÿ
`**
6ÿ
3
ÿ
ÿ ÿ 
%ÿ 3*6ÿÿÿh4


Rÿÿ
Sÿ
%ÿÿ
`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
ÿ
`ÿ 4ÿ
ÿ 
`ÿ5


`ÿ
ÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿ ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ6ÿ755ÿÿ8
` ÿ955ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ:;*2.*ÿ
`<=ÿ?@ABCDDÿFCCDÿ
`0

`ÿ 
` ÿ
`


`ÿÿ:;+222ÿÿ9
` ÿ ÿG5

`ÿ H
` ÿ
`ÿ:)++ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ9
`  ÿ9ÿÿ
`ÿ
`
` ÿ ÿ

ÿ

`ÿ
` 
5ÿ/7
59(ÿI
`
5 (ÿ
ÿ
`J3ÿ0

`ÿÿ
`ÿ  ÿ
`ÿG5

`K ÿ H
`ÿL
` ÿ ÿ
ÿ
559ÿ
` 

`ÿ
`ÿ);ÿM-8ÿNÿO;)Oÿ6ÿ5
ÿ
ÿ9
` ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ9
` (ÿ9ÿ

ÿ
` 
`ÿÿ
`ÿ
`
` (ÿ
ÿ ÿ5
ÿ 4ÿ
`ÿ9
` ÿ9
ÿP 54ÿ
`ÿ ÿ
Qÿÿ
`RS&%Tÿ ÿRUVW%&U(ÿOXYÿ,Z0ÿ+O2(ÿ+OXÿ/J0ÿ[
ÿOYY;3ÿ\]"%ÿ^Tÿ_U`&Uÿ ÿ
`_a&UÿbU'cÿ\`(ÿ+Y;ÿ,ÿ-ÿ)YY(ÿ*2+ÿ/0-8ÿOY;.3ÿ
KÿXY)ÿ,)ÿ.Oÿ/.
`ÿ8 ÿOY;3ÿ
`d94 (ÿ ÿ ÿ9
`  ÿ9ÿP
` ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿÿÿÿ9 ÿ4ÿ  
`ÿ

`ÿ
` 
5Qÿ
ÿ
`
`ÿ
559
5ÿ^%S&ÿ ÿ^%S&(ÿ+X2ÿ,ÿ-ÿ;)(ÿ;)Yÿ/0-8ÿOY;*3ÿG5

`K ÿ H
`ÿ
`955ÿ ÿ
`ÿ755ÿÿ8
` ÿ ÿ:)++22ÿ
`F=ÿ<eCfgh@i@jkA@lBÿkBmÿnlgo@BpÿnlDADÿ
`0

`ÿ 
` ÿ:)Y(;);.2ÿ ÿ5

`ÿ
ÿ ÿ
` ÿ6 ÿ 
`ÿ
`5 ÿ:O();X+ÿÿ5

`ÿ
` ÿ ÿ  4 ÿ
`ÿ 

`ÿ
 ÿG5

`ÿ
` H
` ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
 ÿ
ÿ
` ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿÿ
` ÿ
` 
55 ÿ
559
5ÿ ÿNÿOY)2ÿ
`Lÿ
` ÿ ÿ
 ÿ  ÿ
`ÿ08ÿ8 
`ÿ8
`ÿÿI
5 (ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ
`

`ÿ
`
ÿ
` ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ
`

5ÿ
ÿPqr
 ÿÿ
`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 $3,151.20. Jd.
`
`Copying costs can be taxed if they were “necessarily obtained for use in the case.”
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Copies “obtained merely for the convenience of counsel” are not
`
`taxable. Scallet v. Rosenblum, 176 F.R.D. 522, 524 (W.D. Va. 1997). Whether copies
`
`“are properly reimbursable rather than incurred simply as a ‘convenience’ to counsel”
`
`needs to be demonstrated by the party requesting taxation of costs. Simmons v. O’Malley,
`
`235 F. Supp. 2d 442, 444 (D. Md. 2002). Defendant has shown that the copies in the
`
`  ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
ÿÿÿ ÿ  ÿ ÿ ÿ   !ÿ"ÿ# ÿ$" 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- $$ÿ! ÿ" ÿ" !ÿ   ÿ'  !ÿ! ÿ
`, !ÿ  ÿ"  ÿ  ÿ $ ÿ$ÿ' ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ .# ÿ' ÿ"  ÿ ÿ$ÿ
` ÿ$ÿ  ÿ/ ÿ/ # ÿ)ÿ  )ÿ  ÿ  ! ÿ +ÿ$ÿ ÿ 0  ÿ( $  ÿ
` ÿ'1 ÿ  ÿ ÿ$ÿ   ÿ! ÿ(2ÿ)*ÿ3 ÿ '  ÿ( $  ÿ'1 ÿ
`,   ÿ" !ÿ  ÿ )&ÿ .# ÿ"  ÿ, ÿ ÿ 1  ÿ"ÿ"  ÿ
`,' ÿ$ÿ&&ÿÿ'! ÿ$ÿ 1  ÿ ÿÿ ÿ$ÿ%ÿ' ÿ'! ÿ(2ÿ)*ÿ
`( $  ÿ'1 ÿ   ÿ .# ÿ' ÿ ÿ  ÿ"  ÿ ÿ $$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$ÿ  7ÿ ÿ  ÿ
` .# ;ÿ=>?@@ABÿC;ÿDEFAGH@IJÿ&ÿ
K(ÿ ÿ ÿ L(ÿMÿ&**ÿL  ÿ' ÿ
`6 ÿ'' ÿ ,## ÿ  ÿ  ÿ  ÿ,'ÿÿÿN 1   ÿ ÿ  7ÿ
` ÿ ÿ# ÿ ,   ÿ#ÿ  ÿ' ÿ 0   !ÿ .  ÿ$ÿ ÿ=OJJEGFÿC;ÿPQR?@@ASÿ
` )ÿ
ÿ9''ÿ ÿ ÿÿ (ÿTÿ  ÿ( $  ÿÿ" 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
` 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
ÿ  ÿÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ
` 
`ÿ
`ÿÿ
` ÿ !!
"#ÿ ÿ  $ÿ ÿÿ ÿ
` 
`ÿÿÿ
`% 
$ÿ

&#ÿ
ÿ

&#ÿ' ! ÿ
( ÿ)*#*+,-*ÿ
`. &&

`ÿ/ ÿ0 &  ÿ1

&ÿ
`2#233*ÿ
`4
` $
&"ÿ5
$ ÿ
`2+#6*+67ÿ
`8    ÿ
` &  ÿ

&ÿ
$ ÿ
`6#3-92ÿ
`:
$ÿ ÿ
`9,+9ÿ
`8  && 
$ÿ  ÿ
`3**,,ÿ
`;
&ÿ
` $ÿ
$ ÿ
`2-#3-7*ÿ
`
`
`5 & ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ  
"ÿ
`2,#33,++ÿ
`ÿÿÿ1 ÿ0 
`ÿ5 ÿ
`)*#*2*-7ÿ
`ÿ<ÿ 
ÿ ÿÿ0 
`=ÿ>ÿ ÿ5 ÿ
ÿ&
&
"ÿ? ÿ'
` $ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
@ 
`ÿ ÿ ÿ)#672,ÿ"ÿ ÿ)*#*2*-7ÿ ÿ
` 
`ÿ ÿ
 ÿÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ)9,#+-3+9#ÿÿÿ ÿ?
`ÿ$ÿ: ÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿÿ ÿ
`A
`$! ÿ1ÿ ÿ2ÿ
`"ÿ ÿB 
#ÿ3,39ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCCÿD ÿEÿ>
F
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ5
Fÿ ÿ5
ÿ
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket