Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01310/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01310-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FADI SABA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNISYS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01310-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REVIEW COSTS

Re: Dkt. No. 163

After the clerk awarded defendant Unisys Corporation (“Unisys”) $9,924.70 in costs, 

Unisys requests review of the award pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). See 

FED. R. CIV. P. 54 (“On motion served within the next 7 days, the court may review the clerk's 

action.”); Dkt. No. 163. Unisys asserts that the clerk erred by (i) excluding the costs of 

videotaping depositions; (ii) disallowing costs for service of process; and (iii) disallowing copying 

costs. Dkt. No. 163 at 1-2. 

I GRANT Unisys’s request for the purpose of correcting the costs awarded for videotaping 

deposition and for copying fees. Unisys is entitled to the copying costs and costs of videotaping 

depositions that were disallowed, but not for its “same day” service of process. 

DISCUSSION

I. COSTS

A. Videotaped Deposition Costs

The clerk taxed the cost for the written deposition transcripts, but not the costs associated 

with videotaping those depositions. Dkt. No. 159. Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1) states that “[t]he 

cost of an original and one copy of any deposition (including videotaped depositions) taken for 

any purpose in connection with the case is allowable.” My colleagues disagree whether parties are 

entitled to the cost of both a stenographic deposition transcript and a videotape of the same 

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 168 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Northern District of California

deposition. Kilopass Tech. Inc. v. Sidense Corp., No. C 10-02066 SI, 2013 WL 843104, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013) (recognizing that “courts in this district have reached divergent outcomes 

on this issue,” and concluding that “Local Rule 54–3(c) allows for the taxable costs of both the 

videotape and the transcript of a deposition”); see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 

11-CV-01846-LHK, 2014 WL 4745933, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014) (“Courts across the 

Northern District have struggled to interpret Civil Local Rule 54–3(c)(1)”). I join those that do 

consider those costs necessary for trial in the appropriate case. Samsung Electronics Co., 2014 

WL 4745933, at *6; Kilopass, 2013 WL 843104, at *3; Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 

697 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Meier v. United States, No. C 05-04404 WHA, 

2009 WL 982129, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009); Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter 

Int'l, Inc., No. C 03-1431 SBA, 2008 WL 2020533, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2008); Pixion Inc. v. 

PlaceWare Inc., No. C 03-02909 SI, 2005 WL 3955889, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2005). 

Trial lawyers need to use some judgment in deciding whether a videotaped deposition is 

necessary. It is often more effective to show inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses on 

videotape than to simply impeach them with a deposition transcript. Here, Unisys has requested

costs associated only with videotaping the depositions of Saba (for two days) and two of Saba’s 

experts. Dkt. No. 163 at 2. These were important depositions in the case. Moreover, Saba 

videotaped the same depositions and all others taken in this case. Id. at 3. Under these 

circumstances, the videotaping costs were necessary for Unisys’s defense. It is entitled to an 

additional $5,095.76 in costs for the videotaped depositions. See Dkt. No. 163 at 2. 

B. Process Servers’ Fees

Unisys requests $295.75 for the process servers’ fees that it incurred in serving its 

subpoena on Aetna, which Magistrate Judge Ryu expressly allowed. Dkt. No. 163 at 3. While 

Unisys is entitled to costs for private process servers, these costs are only allowed “to the extent 

reasonably required and actually incurred.” Civil L.R. 54-3(a)(2). Here, the invoice submitted 

reflected a relatively high cost for service ($295.75), stated that it used “same day” service, and 

was not itemized as to number of attempts, mileage, or other factors affecting cost or what would 

be considered reasonable. See Dkt. No. 140; Affymetrix, 2005 WL 2072113, at *2 (“Expedited 

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 168 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Northern District of California

delivery or messenger fees . . . are not recoverable”); Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Technical 

Ceramics Corp., No. 08CV335-IEG NLS, 2011 WL 666881, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011) (“In 

its bill of costs, ATC did not break out the cost of expediting service, such that the Court cannot 

determine what portion of the claimed cost is proper.”). Accordingly, because Unisys has not 

presented adequate evidence that the fees for service of the Aetna subpoena were “reasonably 

required,” its objection is DENIED. 

C. Copying Costs

Unisys requests $72.00 for costs incurred in copying documents produced to Saba in 

discovery. Dkt. No. 163 at 4. Copying costs are taxable pursuant to Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(2). 

I do not see any reason to disallow the $72.00 in copying costs submitted by Unisys, and 

accordingly GRANT Unisys’s request for copying costs. 

D. Saba’s Objections 

Saba filed an objection to Unisys’s bill of costs before the clerk taxed the costs. Dkt. No. 

146. The clerk considered these objections before awarding costs, and after reviewing the costs 

taxed by the clerk, I am satisfied that the remaining costs awarded are appropriate. I am not 

persuaded by Saba’s argument that I should exercise my discretion to deny an award of costs

entirely, and find that there is no compelling reason to do so. 

II. MOTION TO COMPEL UNISYS TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Saba objected to Unisys’s bill of costs, asserting that he was unable to pay, among other 

things. Dkt. No. 146. In response to Saba’s objection, Unisys filed a brief that included 

information that Saba contends violates the parties’ protective order. Dkt. No. 155. 

In its response, Unisys stated that Saba “earned a salary in the high five figures during his 

last several years of employment with Unisys and, for at least five years during that period was . . . 

also earning a six-figure salary.” Dkt. No. 155 at 1. It also asserted that he earned “almost 

$200,000 annually for at least 5 years.” Id. It further described the amount that Saba received 

from a prior settlement, which was already part of the record, and described the rough amount 

Saba earned each year at Unisys. Id. at 3. Finally, Unisys referred to a specific sum that Saba had 

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 168 Filed 09/14/15 Page 3 of 4
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

Northern District of California

received from family, which was also part of the record. Id. at 4. 

Saba objects to these disclosures, as well as his address and the names of his children. 

However, he does not provide specific citations to the record that he objects to, or to the protective 

order. None of the information at issue is covered by the parties’ stipulated protective order. See 

Dkt. No. 26. Much of it is already part of the record. Saba did not mark this information as 

confidential and never requested that any of this information be filed under seal. However, Saba is 

correct that the names of his minor children may be filed under seal in accordance with Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. 

The procedure set forth in the protective order requires that a party mark information as

confidential and file a motion to seal when appropriate. See Dkt. No. 26 at 8 (“If a Party wishes to 

file a document designated "CONFIDENTIAL" with the Court, such document shall be filed 

conditionally under seal until further order of the court. The party who requests the document be 

filed under seal shall prepare the necessary order in compliance with Civil Local rule 79-5. The 

filing Party shall serve the sealed document upon all parties of record by electronic mail or 

pursuant to any authorized means of service.”). If Saba wishes such information to be filed under 

seal, he should file a motion to seal, along with a redacted and unredacted versions of the 

document at issue, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. 

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Unisys’s motion to review costs is GRANTED. It is entitled to an 

additional $72.00 to reflect copying costs that the clerk disallowed, and to $5,095.76 in costs for 

videotaping the two expert depositions. It is not entitled to additional costs for the videotaped 

depositions or the process servers’ fees. Saba’s motion to compel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 168 Filed 09/14/15 Page 4 of 4