Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03235/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03235-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ULTRATECH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TAMARACK SCIENTIFIC CO.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-03235 CRB

ORDER RE: TAXATION OF COSTS

In this patent action the defendant and prevailing party, Tamarack Scientific

Company, now moves for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs. After carefully reviewing

the papers submitted by the parties, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “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). Under 28 U.S.C. section 1920 taxable costs are, among other things,

“fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28

U.S.C. § 1920(4). The Local Rules explain in more detail what papers are “necessarily

obtained for use in the case.” See Affymetrix, Inc. v. Multilyte Ltd., 2005 WL 2072113

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2005) (stating that Northern District Local Rule 54-3 “provides

standards for interpreting the costs allowed under section 1920”) (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted).

Case 3:03-cv-03235-CRB Document 696 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\CRBALL\2003\3235\orderretaxation.wpd 2

1. The Local Rules interpret section 1920 as excluding costs for copying

“motions, pleadings, notices, and other routine case papers.” Local Rule 54-3(d)(3). As this

Rule is a permissible interpretation (as opposed to contradiction) of the costs taxable under

section 1920, Tamarack’s request for the taxation of costs incurred in copying motions,

pleadings, notices and other routine case papers is overruled. 

2. The number of copies for which Tamarack seeks taxation are reasonable and

necessary. Thus, to the extent the Clerk disallowed certain costs on the ground that the

number of copies was excessive, the Clerk is overruled. The Clerk should also tax the costs

of compact discs to the extent documents were scanned on to such discs and not also

produced on hard copies.

3. The Local Rules provide that the prevailing party may recover “[t]he cost of an

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

purpose in connection with the case.” Civil LR 54-3(c)(1). Under a plain reading of this

Rule Tamarack may recover the costs of written transcripts of depositions as well as the cost

of a videotaped copy of the deposition, if the deposition was videotaped. See Pixion v.

Placeware, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11351 at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2005). A

videotape without a written transcript is not sufficient for use at trial.

4. Tamarack shall submit a proposed order in accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03235-CRB Document 696 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2