Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02870/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02870-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

DRUCILLA COOPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED AIR LINES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02870-JSC 

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR REVIEW 

OF THE CLERK’S TAXATION OF 

COSTS

Re: Dkt. No. 94

Now pending before the Court is Defendant United Air Lines, Inc.’s Motion for Review of 

the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs. (Dkt. No. 94.) After carefully considering the arguments and 

briefing submitted, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), 

and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Drucilla Cooper brought this employment discrimination action against United 

Air Lines, Inc. (“United”) alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206, et seq.,

retaliation, and discrimination on account of her age and disability. (Dkt. No. 70.) The Court 

granted summary judgment in United’s favor and entered judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 83 & 84.) 

Pursuant to the judgment, United 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). United 

sought $9,764.16 in costs. (Dkt. No. 85.) Plaintiff filed objections to $5,773.47 of the costs 

claimed. (Dkt. No. 92.) The Clerk declined to tax $2,416.20 of the transcript costs sought as 

Case 3:13-cv-02870-JSC Document 97 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 5
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

“outside the ambit of Civil Local Rule 54–3(b) -(c)” and struck $165.61 sought in “other costs,” 

thereby taxing a total of $7,182.35 in costs against Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 93.)

United thereafter filed the underlying motion for review of the taxation of costs, which 

Plaintiff opposes. (Dkt. Nos. 94 & 95.)

LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 1920 authorizes a judge or clerk of the district court to tax costs. Pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), “costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to 

the prevailing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). “Rule 54(d) creates a presumption in favor of 

awarding costs to prevailing parties, and it is incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why 

the costs should not be awarded.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Taxable costs are listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 as follows:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or 

electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the 

case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees 

for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials 

where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) 

Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of 

court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, 

fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under 

section 1828 of this title.

Civil Local Rule 54–3 provides additional “standards for interpreting the costs allowed 

under section 1920.” Intermedics v. Ventritex, Co., No. 90–20233, 1993 WL 515879, at *1 

(N.D.Cal. Dec. 2, 1993). Specifically, the Local Rules require a party’s bill of costs to “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 correctly stated, were necessarily incurred, and are 

allowable by law”). “With 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. 08–4575, 2012 WL 177566, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Case 3:13-cv-02870-JSC Document 97 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Upon motion for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs, the Clerk’s actions may be 

reviewed by the Court de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); Lopez v. San Francisco Unified Sch. 

Dist., 385 F.Supp.2d 981, 1000–1001 (N.D. Cal. 2005). The taxation of costs lies within the trial 

court’s discretion. In re Media Vision Tech. Sees. Litig., 913 F.Supp. 1362, 1366 (N.D. Cal. 

1996). “However, a district court’s discretion to award costs is limited to particular types of costs 

enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920.” In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 914, 926 

(9th Cir. 2015).

DISCUSSION

The Clerk struck two categories of costs: (1) transcript costs, and (2) costs for providing 

chambers copies of pleadings. United challenges both of these reductions to its cost award. 

A. Transcript Fees

United seeks taxable costs for transcripts in the amount of $6,532.31 for transcripts of two 

meet and confer meetings, and seven depositions. (Dkt. No. 85 at pp. 3-4.)1The Clerk’s Bill of 

Costs taxed $4,116.11 and cited Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(3) (b) (c) as the basis for deducting 

$2,416.20 in costs. The Court concludes that United is entitled to $4,268.81 in transcript fees, as 

United is not entitled to the costs of the transcripts for the meet and confer meetings or the costs of 

Plaintiff’s videotaped depositions.

With respect to non-deposition transcript costs, Section 1920 provides that the Clerk of 

Court may tax “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use 

in [a] case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). Civil Local Rule 54-3(b) provides further clarification 

regarding when a party may recover the cost of obtaining transcripts. Specifically, transcript costs 

are allowable only when the transcripts are “necessarily obtained for an appeal” or the transcript 

contains “a statement by a Judge from the bench which is to be reduced to a formal order prepared 

by counsel.” Civ. L.R. 54-3(b)(1)-(2). By contrast, the rule disallows costs for any other 

transcripts “unless, before [the cost] is incurred, it is approved by a Judge or stipulated to be 

recoverable by counsel.” Civ. L.R. 54-3(b)(3).

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

Case 3:13-cv-02870-JSC Document 97 Filed 06/05/15 Page 3 of 5
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

United seeks $1,361 in costs for obtaining transcripts of two meet and confer sessions. 

United concedes that while these costs do not fall within normally compensable costs, they are 

nonetheless proper here because “the history of other cases United and its counsel have litigated 

against Plaintiff’s counsel” made it prudent to transcribe the parties’ meet and confer. (Dkt. No. 

96 at 3.) That United elected to have the parties’ meet and confer sessions transcribed because

the parties have a contentious history does not bring the costs of such transcription under the ambit 

of the rule. United’s further suggestion that transcription of the September 29, 2014 meet and 

confer session was proper because the meet and confer took place pursuant to Court order fares no 

better. The Court’s Order directing the parties to meet and confer neither ordered nor approved of 

transcription of the meet and confer as is required by Local Rule 54-3(b)(3). (Dkt. No. 52.) 

United also seeks $5,371.31 for deposition-related transcript costs. Of these, all but 

$1,267.10 are recoverable. Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1) provides that the cost of “an original and 

one copy of any deposition (including videotaped depositions) taken for any purpose” are 

allowable. Civ. L.R. 54-3(c)(1). The issue here is not that United seeks recovery of the costs of

Plaintiff’s videotaped depositions, but rather, that United seeks the costs for three versions of 

Plaintiff’s depositions—an original and certified copy of the stenographic deposition transcript, 

and the videotaped deposition. United has submitted two invoices for each of Plaintiff’s two 

depositions, two invoices reflect the costs for an “original + one certified copy” for each of 

Plaintiff’s two depositions, and two invoices reflect the costs for videotaped versions of the same

depositions. Compare Dkt. No. 85 at pp. 21, 25 with Dkt. No. 85 at pp. 22, 26. The costs of the 

videotaped depositions thus exceed the costs authorized by Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1).

Accordingly, the Clerk shall tax costs of $4,268.81 with respect to transcript fees.

B. Costs of Providing Chambers Copies

United seeks $165.16 for service of chambers copies of pleadings, all of which were struck 

by the Clerk. United contends that it is entitled to these costs because it was required to deliver 

copies of pleadings to the Court under the local rules and the Court’s Standing Order. Section 

1920 specifies those costs which are taxable. Overnight delivery and “courier” charges are “not 

one of the enumerated categories of recoverable costs in § 1920.” United Healthcare Servs., Inc. 

Case 3:13-cv-02870-JSC Document 97 Filed 06/05/15 Page 4 of 5
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

Northern District of California

v. Meyer, No. 12-6197, 2013 WL 5346094, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2013) (citing Crawford 

Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987)); see also Davis v. Eastfield Ming 

Quong, Inc., No. 08-00769, 2009 WL 225420, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2009) (“Costs allowable 

under section 1920 are enumerated in the statute and do not include messenger fees.”). As the 

Court is not empowered to exceed the limitations set forth in Section 1920, and has “solely a 

power to decline to tax, as costs, the items enumerated in § 1920,” United’s request for fees for 

delivery of chambers copies of filings is denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, United’s motion for Motion for Review of the Clerk’s 

Taxation of Costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Dkt. No. 94.) The Clerk shall tax 

costs in the amount of $7,335.05.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02870-JSC Document 97 Filed 06/05/15 Page 5 of 5