Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02825/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02825-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRUCK-RAIL HANDLING INC., and

QUALITY TRANSPORT, INC.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA

FE RAILWAY COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 02-02825 JSW

ORDER RE BILLS OF COSTS

INTRODUCTION

On March 8, 2005, this Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the

motion for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Truck Rail Handling, Inc. and Quality

Transport, Inc. (collectively, “TRH”) and granting the motion for summary judgment filed by

Defendant Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (“BNSF”). 

On July 11, 2005, the Court entered an order granting Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment on TRH’s conspiracy to monopolize claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. On

that same date, the Court entered judgment in favor of BNSF on TRH’s claims and entered

judgment in favor of TRH on BNSF’s counterclaim for trespass.

On July 25, 2005, each party submitted bills of costs. BNSF opposes TRH’s request for

costs on the ground that it is not the prevailing party and also objects to the amount of costs

sought by TRH. TRH, in turn, objects to the amount of costs sought by BNSF. In addition,

although TRH did not initially oppose BNSF’s request for costs on this basis, in its reply to

Case 3:02-cv-02825-JSW Document 248 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

BNSF’s objections, TRH claims the Court can exercise its discretion and deny costs to both

parties.

ANALYSIS

A. BNSF Is The “Prevailing Party.”

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), “costs other than attorney’s fees shall

be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 54(d)(1). TRH is correct that the Court granted judgment in its favor on BNSF’s

counterclaim for trespass. However, the majority of the claims in this action were asserted by

TRH against BNSF. Specifically, TRH contended that BNSF violated Sections 1 and 2 of the

Sherman Act, tortiously interfered with TRH’s contracts, and misappropriated TRH’s trade

secrets. BNSF prevailed on summary judgment on the first three of these causes of action, and

the last cause of action was dismissed because TRH abandoned it. Considering the multitude of

legal theories on which TRH relied upon to support its antitrust claims and considering the fact

that TRH’s claims against BNSF predominated in the litigation, the Court finds that BNSF is the

prevailing party, notwithstanding the Court’s ruling in favor of TRH on BNSF’s counterclaim. 

See Cornwell Quality Tools Co. v. C.T.S. Co., 446 F.2d 825, 833 (9th Cir. 1971) (noting that a

court has “broad discretion” in apportioning or taxing costs if neither side completely prevails);

see also Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1058 (10th Cir. 1990) (upholding award of costs to

party who prevailed on “majority of claims and the central claims at issue”) (citing, inter alia,

K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., 506 F.2d 471, 477 (9th Cir. 1974)). 

Accordingly, TRH’s request for costs is DENIED.

B. BNSF’s Requested Costs.

TRH objects to BNSF’s claim for costs in the following categories: clerk fees, court

transcripts, photocopying charges, deposition transcripts, and deposition exhibits. The Court

overrules the objections to BNSF’s requested costs for exemplification. The Court finds that

BNSF has adequately demonstrated that it seeks costs to which it is entitled in this category, and

the Court further finds that the costs of exemplification are reasonable in light of the record in

this case. 

Case 3:02-cv-02825-JSW Document 248 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The Court, however, sustains the objections to BNSF’s request for fees of the clerk,

sustains in part the request for transcript fees, and sustains in part the objections to BNSF’s fees

for depositions.

1. Fees of the Clerk

BNSF has claimed $210.00 in fees to the clerk for “appearances and pro hac vice

appearances.” There is a split of authority as to whether a prevailing party can recover the fees

incurred for pro hac vice appearances. Compare Sheffer v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 290 F.

Supp. 2d 538, 552 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (viewing cost of pro hac vice application as “expense of

counsel for the privilege of practicing law in” the court) (quoting Romero v. United States, 865

F. Supp. 585, 594 (E.D. Mo. 1994); Eagle Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 982 F. Supp. 1456, 1458-60

(M.D. Ala. 1997) with Davis v. Puritan-Bennett Corp., 923 F. Supp. 179, 181 (D. Kan. 1996)

(reasoning that because plaintiff selected forum and compelled defendant to defend in that

forum, pro hac vice fees were awardable as costs).

Northern District Local Rule 54-3(a) does not include fees for applications to appear pro

hac vice as awardable costs. Although the Court recognizes that TRH chose the forum, in light

of Local Rule 54-3(a) and the reasoning that a pro hac vice fee normally is an expense of

counsel for the privilege of litigating in a court, the Court declines to award these fees to BNSF. 

2. Transcripts.

Local Rule 54-3(b) permits recovery of costs for transcripts that are necessarily obtained

for an appeal or that are a statement by a judge from the bench, when counsel is directed to

prepare the formal order. N.D. Civ. L.R. 54-3(b)(1), (2). “The cost of other transcripts is not

normally allowable unless, before it is incurred, it is approved by a Judge or stipulated to be

recoverable by counsel.” Id., 54-3(b)(3). Of the three transcripts identified in BNSF’s bill of

costs, the Court concludes that only the request for the transcript of the hearing on the motion

for summary judgment is recoverable under this rule. Further, the Court concludes that BNSF

has not adequately demonstrated that the other two transcripts were “necessarily” obtained for

use in the case. Accordingly, the Court shall not award BNSF the costs for the transcripts of

March 4, 2003 or October 20, 2003.

Case 3:02-cv-02825-JSW Document 248 Filed 09/20/05 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

3. Depositions

BNSF seeks $28,184.35 in costs associated with depositions taken in the case. Pursuant

to Northern District Local Rule 54-3(c)(1), a prevailing party is entitled to the costs “of an

original and one copy of any deposition taken for any purpose in connection with the case.” Cf.

Alfex Corp. v. Underwriters Laboratories, 914 F.2d 175, 176 (9th Cir. 1990) (allowing

prevailing party costs for copies of depositions). A review of the invoices submitted by BNSF

in support of its bill of costs suggests that BNSF seeks costs for an original and more than one

copy for many of the depositions taken, including those taken by videotape. It is unclear to the

Court, however, exactly how many additional copies are included within BNSF’s requested

costs. 

The Court shall allow BNSF the cost of an original deposition, including any costs

associated with videotaping a deposition, one additional copy, and fees charged for delivery or

attendance of the court reporter. 

The Court will not award costs for compressed transcripts, e-mail delivery, litigation

support packages, or unedited ASCII transcripts, as the Court views these expenses to have been

incurred for the convenience of counsel. In addition, should BNSF wish to recover costs

associated with the depositions of Marc Troy Savage or Joseph Lefferdink, it should submit the

invoices associated with those depositions and only seek those categories of costs covered by

this Order.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, BNSF is HEREBY ORDERED to submit an amended bill of costs in

accordance with this Order by October 3, 2005, including supporting documentation. The Clerk

is directed to award such costs to BNSF upon receipt of the amended bill of costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02825-JSW Document 248 Filed 09/20/05 Page 4 of 4