Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02506/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02506-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Horowitz
Defendant
Richard Peacock
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD PEACOCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOROWITZ,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-02506-TLN-AC 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Dr. Horowitz’s (“Defendant”) 

Motion for Court’s Review of Clerk’s Taxation of Costs. (ECF No. 47.) On September 23, 2016, 

the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant, and she timely submitted a Bill of Costs 

supported with documentation of $1,189.84 incurred in connection with Plaintiff’s deposition. 

(ECF No. 45). The Clerk’s Bill of Costs Tax awarded approximately half of that amount, 

disallowing the costs for the court reporter’s deposition appearance fees, one copy of the 

deposition transcript and processing, handling and delivery fees. (ECF No. 46). Defendant 

moves this Court to review the Clerk’s Bill of Cost because she asserts that all of her submitted

costs are recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and Eastern District of California’s Local Rule 

292(f) (“Local Rule 292”) govern the taxation of costs, and other attorney’s fees that are awarded 

to the prevailing party in a civil matter. See Jones v. Cnty of Sacramento, No. CIV S-09-1025 

Case 2:13-cv-02506-TLN-AC Document 48 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 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

2

DAD, 2011 WL 3584330, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011). This rule creates a presumption in 

favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party, which can only be overcome when the Court 

exercises its discretion to disallow costs for specific reasons, which may include punishing 

misconduct by the prevailing party or nonpunitive but compelling equitable justifications. Ass’n 

of Mexican–Am. Educators v. Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591–93 (9th Cir. 2000). Local Rule 292 

mirrors the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and states that items taxable as costs 

include:

(1) Clerk’s fees (28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1920(1));

(2) Marshal’s fees and fees for service by a person other than the 

Marshal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 to the extent they do not exceed the 

amount allowable for the same service by the Marshal (28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1920(1), 1921);

(3) Court reporter’s fees (28 U.S.C. § 1920(2));

(4) Docket fees (28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(5), 1923);

(5) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily 

obtained for use in the action (28 U.S.C. § 1920(4));

(6) Fees to masters, receivers, and commissioners (Fed. R. Civ. P. 

53(a));

(7) Premiums on undertaking bonds or security required by law or 

by order of the Court or necessarily incurred by a party to secure a 

right accorded in the action;

(8) Per diem, mileage and subsistence for witnesses (28 U.S.C. § 

1821);

(9) Compensation of Court-appointed experts, compensation for 

interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special 

interpretation services (28 U.S.C. §§ 1828, 1920(6));

(10) Costs on appeal taxable in the District Court pursuant to Fed. 

R. App. P. 39(e); and

(11) Other items allowed by any statute or rule or by the Court in 

the interest of justice.

Local Rule 292(f). 28 U.S.C. § 1920 is consistent with Local Rule 292(f) and states 

A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs 

the following: (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 

Case 2:13-cv-02506-TLN-AC Document 48 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 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

3

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.

Defendant seeks reimbursement for the cost of the original transcript plus one copy of 

such transcript, as well as the deposition reporter’s appearance fees and the costs of shipping and 

handling. (ECF No. 47 at 4.) The Court addresses each request in turn.

Defendant asserts that the cost of the original and the copy of the transcript are 

recoverable because the original transcript remains sealed and preserved for use at trial, see Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 30(f)(1), and thus, parties are required to purchase a copy in order to use any portion of 

the deposition transcript in connection with motions and to prepare in advance of trial, see E.D. 

Cal. L. R. 133(j) (requiring a courtesy copy of transcript supporting a motion to be lodged with 

the Court). (ECF No. 47 at 4.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s deposition transcript was 

utilized as evidence supporting her motion for summary judgment, and therefore the cost of the 

original deposition transcript is recoverable as a “fee for printed or electronically recorded 

transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). Additionally, 

Defendant states that the cost for a copy of the deposition transcript is a “fee for exemplification 

of and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). 

(ECF No. 47 at 4.)

This Court agrees. The Ninth Circuit has held that the cost of an original deposition and 

the copy of a deposition are recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and (4), and further that an 

additional copy of a deposition is recoverable as an exemplification under § 1920(4):

The cost of deposition copies is “encompassed” by section 1920(2), 

and is therefore properly taxed under the Crawford and Maxwell

holdings. In Independent Iron Works, 322 F.2d at 678, we held that 

the power to tax the expense of copies of depositions is “‘implicit in 

28 U.S.C.A. § 1920(2),’” (quoting Perlman v. Feldmann, 116 

F.Supp. 102, 109 (D. Conn. 1953)), “qualified only by the 

requirement of that statute that the various copies be ‘necessarily

obtained for use in the case.’” Id. We held that obtaining copies of 

depositions taken by the opposing party may be considered 

necessary in certain instances. Id. at 678‒79. We now hold that 

our interpretation in Independent Iron Works, that section 1920(2) 

encompasses the cost of a deposition copy, is still good law, 

because, even after Crawford, we may interpret the meaning of the 

Case 2:13-cv-02506-TLN-AC Document 48 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 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

4

items enumerated as taxable costs in section 1920(2). Thus, here, 

taxing costs for copies of depositions was proper since Alflex does 

not challenge the district court’s finding that the deposition copies 

were necessarily obtained.

. . .

the Fifth Circuit held that although section 1920 does not 

specifically mention depositions, courts have interpreted sections 

1920(2) and 1920(4) to authorize taxing the costs of deposition 

originals and deposition copies if necessarily obtained for the case.

Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990). 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2)

does not specify as to whether a party is limited to one deposition but only states that “[f]ees for 

printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case” are 

recoverable. Moreover, Defendant’s use of the transcript comports with subsection (4) allowing 

recovery 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Thus, Defendant is 

owed reimbursement for the cost of the original transcript as well as one copy of such transcript.

As to Defendant’s request for the reimbursement of the deposition reporter’s appearance 

fees and the costs of shipping and handling, the Court finds that those costs are also recoverable

as “court reporter’s fees” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and Local Rule 292(f)(3). Although this 

Court is not aware of Ninth Circuit precedent that is directly on point, in Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 

998, 1002 (7th Cir. 1998), the Seventh Circuit held that a deposition reporter’s appearance fees 

and the costs of shipping and handling are also recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) as “fees of 

the court reporter.” Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s finding that “court 

reporters’ ‘appearance fees’ and ‘delivery’ or ‘shipping’ fees are encompassed in the phrase ‘Fees 

of the court reporter.’” Lahrichi v. Lumera Corp., No. C04-2124C, 2007 WL 1521222, at *8 

(W.D. Wash. May 22, 2007), aff’d, 433 F. App’x 519 (9th Cir. 2011). As such, the Court finds 

that Defendant’s requested reimbursement for the deposition reporter’s appearance fees and the 

costs of shipping and handling is reasonable and within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and 

Local Rule 292(f)(3).

In sum, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Court’s Review of Clerk’s 

Case 2:13-cv-02506-TLN-AC Document 48 Filed 12/02/16 Page 4 of 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

5

Taxation of Costs (ECF No. 47) is hereby GRANTED. The Bill of Cost is hereby amended, 

increasing the costs awarded to Dr. Horowitz to $1,189.84, the full amount sought in her costs 

bill.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-02506-TLN-AC Document 48 Filed 12/02/16 Page 5 of 5