Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02488/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02488-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

- 1 - 03cv2488 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTAY LAND COMPANY, a Delaware

limited liability company, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 03cv2488 BEN (POR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTIONS TO RETAX COSTS

AWARDED TO DEFENDANTS

RAY ENNIS AND PHIL SCOTT

[Dkt. Nos. 359 & 360]

vs.

U.E. LIMITED, L.P., a California limited

partnership, et al.,

Defendants.

Now before the Court are the Plaintiffs’ motions to appeal court costs awarded to

Defendants Ray Ennis and Phil Scott. Defendants are prevailing parties. Defendants sought and

received from the Clerk of Court Orders awarding court costs. Unsatisfied with the Clerk’s

decision, Plaintiffs seek review before the District Court. The motions are denied. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides a party may appeal the decision on court

costs rendered by the Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court awarded Defendants Ennis and Scott

costs of deposition transcripts for the numerous depositions noticed by Plaintiffs’ counsel. 

Deposition transcripts are taxable as court costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2); see also Alflex Corp.

v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177-78 (9th Cir. 1990). The certified copies of

deposition transcripts were necessary for Defendants Scott and Ennis and the costs award did not

include the costs of additional, multiplied copies of the transcripts created solely for counsel’s

Case 3:03-cv-02488-BEN-POR Document 385 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 2
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 - 03cv2488 

convenience. See Local Rule of Court 54.1.b.3.a (“The cost of an original and one copy of any

deposition (including videotaped depositions) necessarily obtained for use in the case is allowable.

. . . Counsel’s copies are not taxable. . . .”). Therefore, the Orders of the Clerk of Court awarding

costs to Ray Ennis and Phil Scott are correct and Plaintiffs’ motions to re-tax costs are Denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 27, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02488-BEN-POR Document 385 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 2