Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01418/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01418-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FITBUG LIMITED, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FITBIT, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 13-1418 SC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 

REVIEW OF CLERK'S TAXATION OF 

COSTS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Fitbug Limited's ("Fitbug") 

motion for review of costs allowed by the Clerk of the Court 

("Clerk"). ECF No. 108 ("Mot."); see also ECF Nos. 100 ("Bill of 

Costs"), 106 ("Cost Taxed"). The motion is fully briefed, ECF Nos. 

112 ("Opp'n"), 114 ("Reply"), and appropriate for resolution 

without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the 

reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED 

in part, and the Court taxes $63,660.94 in costs. 

II. BACKGROUND 

This is a trademark infringement case between two companies 

that manufacture and sell portable electronic fitness tracking 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 17
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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

devices. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant 

Fitbit, Inc. ("Fitbit") on all the trademark claims, finding they 

were barred by laches, ECF No. 96 ("SJ Order"), and thus entered 

judgment in Fitbit's favor. ECF No. 97 ("Judgment"). Pursuant to 

that judgment, Fitbit submitted a bill of costs as required by 28 

U.S.C. Section 1920, which authorizes the Court or its Clerk to tax 

as "costs" various "minor, incidental [litigation] 

expenses . . . ." Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 

1997, 2006 (2012). 

In its bill of costs, Fitbit sought $88,888.86 in costs. 

Fitbug objected, ECF No. 103, and the Clerk ultimately taxed costs 

of $54,089.15. The Clerk declined to tax $16,997.12 as "outside 

the ambit of Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)," and $17,802.59 as "outside 

the ambit of Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)," which furnish the standards 

for allowable deposition costs and reproduction and exemplification 

costs, respectively. See Civ. L.R. 54-3(c)-(d). 

Despite the Clerk's substantial reductions to Fitbit's costs, 

Fitbug believes the amount taxed includes non-taxable items. As a 

result, Fitbug asks the Court to either reject Fitbit's claimed 

costs entirely or, at a minimum, reduce them by a further 

$27,468.58. Fitbit opposes any further reductions in its costs. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Awarding costs is discretionary; however there is a 

presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties. See 

Ass'n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); see also Jefferson v. City of Fremont, 

No. C-12-0926 EMC, 2015 WL 1264703, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 17
3 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

2015). Nonetheless, "[w]ith regard to individual itemized costs, 

the burden is on the party seeking costs . . . to establish the 

amount of compensable costs and expenses to which it is entitled." 

City of Alameda v. Nuveen Mun. High Income Opportunity Fund, No. C08-4575 SI, 2012 WL 177566, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides for a party to 

move for judicial review of costs taxed by the clerk. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 54(d)(1). The Court reviews the Clerk's taxation of costs de 

novo. See Lopez v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 385 F. Supp. 

2d 981, 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 

Taxable costs are listed in 28 U.S.C. Section 1920 ("Section 

1920"), and include: (1) filing fees and other court fees, (2) fees 

for transcripts "necessarily obtained for use in the case;" (3) 

costs of exemplification and copies also "necessarily obtained," 

(4) certain fees for printing and witnesses, (5) docket fees under 

28 U.S.C. Section 1923, and (6) costs of court-appointed experts or 

compensation for interpreters. 

 The Civil Local Rules provide additional guidance regarding 

bills of costs. See Civ. L.R. 54-1(a); Civ. L.R. 54-3. 

Specifically, the Local Rules require a party's bill of costs 

"state separately and specifically each item of taxable costs 

claimed." Civ. L.R. 54-1(a). Further, a party must provide an 

affidavit stating that the items listed are "correct and [have] 

been necessarily incurred in the case and that the services for 

which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily 

performed." 28 U.S.C. § 1924; see also Civ. L.R. 54-1(a) 

(requiring a supporting affidavit stating that "the costs are 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 17
4 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

correctly stated, were necessarily incurred, and are allowable by 

law"). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

First, Fitbug argues that because Fitbit's declaration 

supporting its bill of costs, ECF No. 100-1 ("First Wakefield 

Decl."), does not state (as required by Civil Local Rule 54-1(a)) 

that its claimed costs are "allowable by law," all of Fitbit's 

costs should be denied. However, Fitbit's declaration states it is 

filed "in support of Fitbit's Bill of Costs" and is "in accordance 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, Local Rules 54-1 and 54-3, 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1924." Id. at ¶ 2. While Fitbug apparently 

believes "[n]o other words can tell it half so clearly," the 

requirement a party say the "three little words," "allowable by 

law," is merely a reminder that the Court expects them to submit 

costs they believe are taxable, not a set of magic words necessary 

to receive any costs. Cf. Sarah Vaughan, Three Little Words, on 

Live at the London House (Mercury Records 1958), available at: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WSZ6IRC-ys. As the language of 

Fitbit's declaration makes clear, Fitbit submitted these costs in 

good faith and understood that doing so was a representation to the 

Court and the Clerk that the costs were "allowed by law." Now the 

Court must decide whether Fitbit was right or not. The Court 

declines to elevate form over substance to avoid making that 

decision. 

The balance of Fitbug's motion takes issue with Fitbit's 

claimed costs for shipping, electronic discovery and document 

production, preparing demonstrative exhibits, and certain office 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 4 of 17
5 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

supplies. The Court also addresses the claimed costs for 

deposition transcripts and, finally, photocopying and scanning. 

A. Shipping Charges 

Shipping or expedited delivery charges are not allowable as 

costs. See SJA Amoroso Const. Co. v. Exec. Risk Indemn. Inc., No. 

C 06-2572-SBA, 2009 WL 962008, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2009). 

Fitbug rightly points out that Fitbit sought as costs $324.28 for 

FedEx shipping and messenger services. Further, Fitbug's objection 

notes that shipping and handling for deposition transcripts are 

also not allowable. See Obj. at 6-7; see also Blanton v. Cnty. of 

Sacramento, No. 2:09-cv-01832-MCE-CKD, 2013 WL 3283216, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. June 27, 2013) ("[T]he court will not tax the cost of postage 

and handling of the deposition transcripts, since those costs are 

not enumerated in [28 U.S.C. Section 1920].") (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). As a result, Fitbug's motion for 

review is GRANTED and these costs will not be taxed. 

B. Electronic Discovery and Document Production 

Next, Fitbug takes issue with several costs associated with 

electronic discovery and document production. 

Section 1920 was enacted in 1853 and as a result does not 

speak directly on the taxability of electronic discovery costs. 

See Alzheimer's Inst. of Am. Inc. v. Elan Corp. PLC, No. C-10-

00482-EDL, 2013 WL 8744216, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013). Nor 

has the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court spoken on how Section 1920 

should be interpreted in this context, aside from remarking that 

(in a distinct context, see id. at *1 (distinguishing this general 

statement)) "[t]axable costs are limited to relatively minor, 

incidental expenses." Taniguchi, 132 S. Ct. at 2006. 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 5 of 17
6 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

In this vacuum, courts have analogized the language of Section 

1920(4), which authorizes the taxation of "[f]ees for 

exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials 

where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the 

case . . . ," to a variety of electronic discovery expenses. See, 

e.g., Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 11-CV-06357 YGR, 2013 

WL 4532927, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013) (allowing costs for 

converting electronic documents into usable formats while denying 

costs for hosting electronic data and technical support); 

Pacificorp v. Nw. Pipeline GP, No. 3:10-cv-00099-PK, 2012 WL 

6131558, at *7-8 (D. Or. Dec. 10, 2012) (concluding that conversion 

of electronic documents into a database is taxable); Tibbie v. 

Edison Int'l, No. CV 07-5359 SVW (AGRx), 2011 WL 3759927, at *6 

(C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011) (taxing costs for technical experts 

required to prepare and produce electronic discovery documents). 

1. Charges for "FW Litigation Support -- Data 

Extraction and Processing 

The first electronic discovery expense Fitbug disputes is five 

charges for "FW Litigation Support -- Data Extraction and 

Processing" apparently totaling $23,464.98. Mot. at 6. However, 

one of these charges, described in Fitbug's moving papers as $23.78 

claimed for "FW Litigation Support -- Data Extraction and 

Processing," id., does not actually appear in Fitbit's submissions. 

On the contrary, the only $23.78 item Fitbit submitted is an 

already-disallowed shipping charge, dated November 18, 2013. See 

First Wakefield Decl. Ex. B at 8. Even though this charge is also 

wrongly dated in both Fitbug's objection and motion, the Court 

surmises that Fitbug likely meant to challenge a different charge 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 6 of 17
7 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

(also for "FW Litigation Support -- Data Extraction and 

Processing") dated November 30, 2013 and totaling $8,840.85. As a 

result, the correct total for these objected-to charges is 

$32,282.05. 

The First Wakefield Declaration avers that these costs relate 

"to collection, scanning and conversion of documents, and related 

processes necessary to the eDiscovery process," and these entries 

specifically "concern document collection, including scanning and 

related processes." In a subsequent declaration, Wakefield 

provides more information about these costs, stating that they were 

necessary to prepare discovery documents for production to Fitbug 

in the format to which the parties agreed. See ECF No. 112-1 

("Second Wakefield Decl.") at ¶¶ 9-10; see also ECF No. 23 

(stating, in a joint case management statement, that the parties 

agreed to a particular format for electronic documents). 

As Fitbit points out, several other courts have taxed similar 

electronic document processing costs where, as here, the parties 

agreed to a particular format for production and the costs incurred 

were necessary for compliance with that agreement. See Ancora, 

2013 WL 4532927, at *2; eBay v. Kelora Sys., LLC, No. C 10-4947 CW 

(LB), 2013 WL 1402736, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2013). 

Initially, Fitbug argued that these costs were impermissible 

because they included non-taxable costs for data hosting, metadata 

extraction, and printing documents to serve on opposing counsel. 

See ECF No. 108-1 ("Rosenberg Decl.") ¶¶ 3-4. However, subsequent 

submissions by Fitbit have clarified that such charges are not 

included in Fitbit's claimed costs with the exception of metadata 

extraction, which Fitbit states was necessary to comply with the 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 7 of 17
8 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

parties' agreement regarding the production of electronic 

documents. See Second Wakefield Decl. ¶ 9, 11, 18. 

Fitbug believes the Court should disregard these subsequent 

documents because they provide details not included with Fitbit's 

submissions to the Clerk. However, the Local Rules allow the Clerk 

to "require and consider further affidavits and documentation as 

necessary to determine allowable costs." Civ. L.R. 54-4(a). If 

the Clerk may consider such supplemental submissions, the Court 

cannot imagine why it cannot do so as well. See Gutierrez v. Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 07-05923 WHA, 2011 WL 115481, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Jan. 13, 2011) ("First, [Fitbug] seeks to limit [Fitbit] to 

the attachment filed with the bill of costs, but the local rules 

explicitly provide for submission of supplemental documentation 

rebutting objections, and the federal rules provide for challenges 

to the taxing of costs.") (citations and emphasis omitted); see 

also Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG, 2015 WL 

1304779, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015) (considering arguably 

untimely supplementation of the record because it was a "good-faith 

attempt to provide the court with all information necessary to make 

a reasoned determination about whether to tax costs"). 

Thus, the Court finds these expenses are properly taxed as 

exemplification costs necessarily incurred in complying with the 

parties' agreement. Moreover, to the extent the costs of metadata 

extraction are included, these too are necessarily incurred, 

allowable exemplification costs because they were incurred not for 

the convenience of counsel, but to comply with the parties' 

agreement. Compare Computer Cache Coherency Corp. v. Intel Corp., 

No. C-05-01766 RMW, 2009 WL 5114002, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 8 of 17
9 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

2009) (denying costs for metadata extraction costs merely for the 

convenience of counsel), with eBay, 2013 WL 1402736, at *12 

(allowing such costs where the parties agreement provided for 

metadata extraction, Bates numbering, and native file links). As a 

result, Fitbug's motion for review of the Clerk's taxation of these 

costs is DENIED, and these $32,282.05 in costs will be taxed. 

2. Charges for "FW Litigation Support -- Production 

Deliveries" 

Next, Fitbug challenges seven items for "FW Litigation Support 

-- Production Deliveries" totaling $4,466.91. Initially, Fitbit 

argued these charges are taxable because they "relate to production 

of documents." First Wakefield Decl. at ¶ 5. Subsequently, Fitbit 

has elaborated that these charges include costs for converting 

document formats as required by the parties' agreement, as well as 

providing Bates numbers and confidentiality designation, preparing 

load files, and loading the information onto physical media for 

delivery to Fitbug. Second Wakefield Decl. at ¶ 14. Furthermore, 

contrary to Fitbug's chief objection, Fitbit now avers that the 

costs of shipping or physical deliveries of these materials are not 

included in these charges. Id. at ¶ 15. 

These costs are properly taxed as well because they are 

expressly contemplated by the parties' agreement and are 

necessarily incurred exemplification costs. See eBay, 2013 WL 

1402736, at *7, 12. As Magistrate Judge Beeler found, such costs 

are necessarily incurred because without the conversion and 

organization of these files, "any copy is relatively useless." Id. 

at *7. While Fitbug reiterates its complaints that Fitbit did not 

provide a fuller explanation of these charges in its initial 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 9 of 17
10 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

submissions and again made statements in the parties' meet and 

confer that are contradicted by its subsequent submissions, the 

Court rejected these arguments as to the other discovery costs and 

does so here as well. See Civ. L.R. 54-4(a); Gutierrez, 2011 WL 

115481, at *2. As a result, Fitbug's motion for review of the 

Clerk's taxation of these costs is DENIED and this $4,466.91 will 

be taxed. 

C. Demonstrative Exhibit-Related Charges 

Next, Fitbug challenges numerous costs related to Fitbit's 

preparation of demonstrative exhibits. 

Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(5) provides that the "costs of 

preparing charts, diagrams, videotapes, and other visual aids to be 

used as exhibits is allowable if such exhibits are reasonably 

necessary . . . ." The "costs of preparing" demonstrative exhibits 

are limited to "the cost of physical preparation of 

demonstratives," not "costs associated with the intellectual effort 

involved in creating the content of demonstratives." Ancora, 2013 

WL 4532927, at *5 (quoting Computer Cache, 2009 WL 5114002, at *1-

2) (additional citations omitted). 

Here, only some of the costs claimed by Fitbit are taxable. 

For instance, generic entries like "Meeting with counsel" or 

"Travel to[]/from SF" are either not taxable or likely include both 

taxable and non-taxable components. Others, like "[a]ll-day 

meeting, review, and development of Defense slide deck" likely 

include some taxable expenses, however the Court finds Fitbit has 

not sufficiently shown that these costs stem from the physical 

preparation of the demonstrative exhibits and not the "creation and 

preparation of the content of demonstrative exhibits," which is not 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 10 of 17
11 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

taxable. See Pixion Inc. v. Placeware, Inc., No. C 03-02909 SI, 

2005 WL 3955889, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2005). On the other 

hand, the charges labelled "Defense Template," "Cut depo clips," 

and "Database administration" all refer to the physical acts of 

preparing a slide template for use with Fitbit's demonstratives, or 

the physical act of editing videos of depositions and are thus 

taxable. Id.; see also Second Wakefield Decl. at ¶¶ 22, 24. 

Similarly, the physical acts of incorporating comments from counsel 

and making stylistic changes, referred to Fitbit's invoices as 

"Continue Slide Deck Revisions . . ." and "Review of PowerPoint 

Draft . . ." are taxable because they reflect the physical 

preparation of the contents separately decided upon by counsel. 

Second Wakefield Decl. ¶ 24. The remaining costs are either not 

taxable or not sufficiently described for the Court to determine if 

they are taxable, and thus will be excluded from the costs taxed. 

See In re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litig., 661 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. 

Cir. 2011) (applying Ninth Circuit law in disallowing 

insufficiently described costs for document production). As a 

result, the motion for review is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part 

as to these charges, and $5,859.00 will be taxed. 

D. Supplies 

 Next, Fitbug challenges Fitbit's claimed costs for the 

creation of folders, compact discs, index tabs, and other office 

supplies. 

 Fitbug is right to object to the majority of these charges, 

which are simply non-taxable office supplies. See Oyarzo v. 

Tuolumne Fire Dist., No. 1:11-cv-01271-SAB, 2014 WL 1757217, at *21 

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2014) ("[T]he costs of office supplies are not 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 11 of 17
12 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

taxable under [S]ection 1920.") (citing Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. 

Cameron Int'l Corp., No. 1:05-cv-01411-MLHGSA, 2012 WL 4210104, at 

*5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2012)). As a result, Fitbug's motion is 

GRANTED as to items such as "Manila Folder," "Copying:Custom Tabs 

on Folders," or "Index Tabs." Mot. at 7-8. These and other 

similar costs, for instance slipsheets and binders, will not be 

taxed. See, e.g., First Wakefield Decl. Ex. A at 14 (including 

$0.48 for slipsheets and $19.00 for three-ring binders). 

Fitbug also objects to charges for two other items, 

"EDD:Folder Creation" and "EDD:CD Initial Master," arguing that 

these are non-taxable organizational or indexing tasks. See MEMC 

Elec. Materials v. Mitsubishi Materials, No. C-01-4925 SBA (JCS), 

2004 WL 5361246, at *3, 12 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2004) (concluding 

that "Local Rule [54-3(d)] does not authorize costs for . . . 

special services such as indexing . . ."), report and 

recommendation adopted, 2004 WL 5363614 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2004). 

Fitbit does not defend charges for these items on a June 5, 2014 

invoice, which it later discovered was erroneously included in the 

bill of costs.1

 Second Wakefield Decl. at ¶ 29. Fitbit does, 

however, argue that two of these charges are appropriately taxed 

because they were "incurred . . . in scanning and otherwise 

organizing the documents collected" from a third-party former 

 

1

 The Second Wakefield Declaration states that "one invoice for 

$53.75 billed on June 4, 2014 was assigned to the wrong case number 

and billed in error, and should not have been included in the bill 

of costs," id. at ¶ 29, however the invoice itself includes two 

other potentially taxable charges, one for scanning and the other 

for copying. See First Wakefield Decl. Ex. B at 34. Because the 

Court cannot determine from the record whether these remaining 

charges were properly included in the bill of costs or were also 

erroneously charged, these charges will not be taxed. See id. 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 12 of 17
13 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

Fitbit employee, Mark Bult, for production in response to Fitbug's 

subpoena of Mr. Bult. Second Wakefield Decl. ¶ 27. These costs 

are permissible under both Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(2), which 

states that the cost of reproducing "formal discovery documents 

. . . is allowable," and cases allowing for the taxation of the 

costs of producing discovery documents where those costs were 

necessarily incurred and do not include "intellectual efforts" 

involved in the production. See eBay, 2013 WL 1402736, at *5 

(citations omitted). As a result, Fitbug's motion for review is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and only the $28.25 incurred in 

responding to the Bult subpoena will be taxed. The other folder or 

CD creation charges have not been sufficiently explained by Fitbit, 

and as a result will not be taxed. See In re Ricoh, 661 F.3d at 

1368. 

E. Depositions 

 Finally, while Fitbug did not seek review of the Clerk's 

taxation of deposition costs, it did argue in its objection that 

certain deposition costs should not be taxed. Given that the Court 

reviews the Clerk's taxation of costs de novo, the Court addresses 

these costs as well. 

 Section 1920 provides for the taxation of "[f]ees for printed 

or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use 

in the case . . . ." Id. at (2). Civil Local Rule 54-3(c) 

provides for the taxation of the costs of an original and one copy 

of deposition transcripts "including videotaped depositions," as 

well as "[n]otary fees incurred in connection with taking 

depositions . . . ." See Civ. L.R. 54-3(c)(1), (3). 

 First, Fitbug notes that Fitbit seeks costs for "Transcript 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 13 of 17
14 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

Packages" from a vendor, Esquire Solutions, for the depositions of 

Mark Bult, James Park,2 and Amy McDonough. Fitbug argues these 

packages contain more than the single original and copy permitted 

by the Local Rules because, according to Esquire Solutions' 

website, the transcript packages contain a bound paper transcript, 

and a CD containing four versions of the full or condensed 

transcripts. See ECF No. 103-1 ("Second Rosenberg Decl.") Ex. 1. 

Although "the trend among courts in this District appears to allow 

a party to recover costs for the original deposition transcript and 

a copy -- no matter what format the copy is in," Fitbug is right 

that these transcript packages contain more than an original and a 

single copy, as permitted by the Local Rules, and accordingly 

cannot be fully taxed. See Hesterberg v. United States, -- F. 

Supp. 3d --, 2014 WL 7184246, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2014). The Court 

finds that taxing only 40 percent of the transcript packages is the 

best potential solution because Esquire does not itemize the costs 

of each additional format. Accordingly, the Court taxes $348.15 

for the deposition of Amy McDonough and $235.65 for the deposition 

of Mark Bult. As explained in footnote two, above, the Court taxes 

$1,471.80 for the deposition of James Park. 

 For the remaining depositions, the Court finds the only 

allowable costs are one transcript copy, one additional copy (in 

most cases a video copy), exhibit costs, and a reporter 

 

2

 Fitbit submitted two invoices from Esquire for the deposition of 

Mr. Park. One merely refers to a single copy of the transcript, 

while the other contains the same objectionable transcript package. 

See First Wakefield Decl. Ex. A at 16-18. The Court taxes the full 

cost of the single copy, 20 percent of the transcript package as 

the second copy, and a single set of exhibits, for a total of 

$1,471.80. 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 14 of 17
15 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

certification if not otherwise included in the cost of the 

transcript. See Civ. L.R. 54-3(c)(1)-(4); Ancora, 2013 WL 4532927, 

at *5-6 (concluding there is "no reason to deny costs which conform 

to [Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1)], even if the second copy is a 

rough ASCII or a video"). Fitbug rightly objects that the other 

charges for shipping and handling of transcripts, "Interactive 

Realtime," rough ASCII copies, and transcript CDs either fall 

outside Section 1920 or exceed the number of copies permitted by 

Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1). Accordingly, the Court taxes the 

following deposition costs: 

Deponent Items Amount 

Mark Bult Transcript Package 

(taxed at 40%) 

$155.90

Exhibits $79.75

Dennis Skigen Transcript $1,050.00

Exhibits $276.20

Reporter Certification $20.00

Video $570.00

Paul Landau Transcript $1,527.20

Exhibits $283.30

Reporter Certification $20.00

Video $760.00

James Park Transcript $926.25

Exhibits $357.10

Transcript Package 

(taxed at 20%) 

$188.45

Fergus Kee Transcript $1,070.70

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 15 of 17
16 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

Exhibits $233.80

Reporter Certification $20.00

Video $855.00

Woody Scal Transcript $471.25

Exhibits $11.75

Video (1 of 4) $125.00

Eric Friedman Transcript $591.50

Exhibits $193.10

Video $500.00

Amy McDonough Transcript Package 

(taxed at 40% 

$240.40

Exhibits $107.75

Sundeep Sangany Transcript $1,657.50

Exhibits $25.20

Reporter Certification $20.00

Video $760.00

E. Deborah Jay Transcript $413.80

Exhibits $106.00

Bruce Issacson Transcript $1,306.40

Exhibits $658.80

Reporter Certification $20.00

David Haas Transcript $1,004.50

Exhibits $140.50

Video $1,742.50

Michael J. 

Jeffords 

Videos (2 of 4) $250.00

TOTAL DEPOSITION COSTS TAXED: $18,739.60

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 16 of 17
17 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

 F. Remaining Exemplification Costs 

In addition to the foregoing contested costs, Fitbit also 

sought $2,210.24 for photocopying and $74.89 for scanning. Because 

these costs are necessarily incurred exemplification costs, see 28 

U.S.C. Section 1920(4), they will be taxed as well. 

V. CONCLUSION

 For the reasons set forth above, Fitbug's motion for review 

of the Clerk's taxation of costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in 

part and the Court taxes the following costs: 

Category Amount 

Deposition transcripts, 

video transcripts, reporter 

certifications, and exhibits 

$18,739.60 

Photocopying and scanning $2,285.13 

Electronic discovery and 

document production costs 

$36,748.96 

Preparation of demonstrative 

exhibits 

 $5,859.00 

Production costs for Bult 

subpoena 

 $28.25 

TOTAL COSTS TAXED: $63,660.94 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 13, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:13-cv-01418-SI Document 119 Filed 05/13/15 Page 17 of 17