Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF IN RE 

SKANSKA USA CIVIL 

SOUTHEAST INC. AND 

SKANSKA USA, INC. AS 

OWNERS OF THE BARGE KS 

5531 PRAYING FOR 

EXONERATION FROM OR 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H)

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.

3:20-CV-05980-LC/HTC

ORDER ON CLAIMANTS’ BILL OF COSTS 

This matter is before the Court on Claimants’ Bill of Costs, ECF Doc. 1353, 

the United States’ Amended Bill of Costs, ECF Doc. 1365, Skanska’s response in 

opposition, ECF Doc. 1364, Claimants’ reply, ECF Doc. 1374, and Skanska’s SurReply, ECF Doc. 1381. Upon consideration, the Court finds Claimants should be

awarded $100,476.37 in taxable costs.

1 

I. Background

Skanska brought this admiralty action seeking a declaration from the Court 

limiting its liability to hundreds of Claimants for property and economic damages 

1

 This matter was referred to the undersigned for disposition by Senior District Judge Collier. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 1 of 24
Page 2 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

allegedly suffered by the Claimants as a result of Skanska’s negligence in failing to 

secure numerous barges during Hurricane Sally. 

After a one-week bench trial held in October 2021, the Court entered an Order 

and Final Judgment in favor of Claimants. ECF Doc. 1352. Skanska appealed the 

Judgment and, on August 2, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Judgment. ECF 

Docs. 1385, 1386.

II. Legal Standard

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a prevailing party may recover the 

following costs: (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 28 U.S.C. § 1923; and (6) compensation of court 

appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and 

costs of special interpretation services under 28 U.S.C. § 1828. 28 U.S.C. § 1920; 

see also Fed R. Civ P. 54(d)(1).

While courts are “accorded great latitude in ascertaining taxable costs,” 

Habersham Plantation Corp. v. Art & Frame Direct, Inc., 2011 WL 6138740, at *1 

(S.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2011), their discretion is limited to only those costs specifically set 

out in § 1920, Crawford Fitting Co., v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 440–44

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 2 of 24
Page 3 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

(1987). Courts may not tax as costs any items not authorized by statute. See e.g. U.S. 

EEOC v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 620 (11th Cir. 2000). When challenging 

whether costs are taxable, the losing party bears the burden of demonstrating that a 

cost is not taxable, unless the knowledge regarding the proposed cost is within the 

exclusive knowledge of the prevailing party. See Ass'n for Disabled Americans, Inc. 

v. Integra Resort Mgmt., Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1288 (M.D. Fla. 2005); Desisto 

College, Inc. v. Town of Howey-in-the Hills, 718 F. Supp. 906, 910 n.1 (M.D. Fla.

1989), aff’d, 914 F.2d 267 (11th Cir. 1990). 

III. Discussion

Claimants seek a total of $230,855.54 in costs, broken down as follows: 

$9,725.13 is sought by Beggs & Lane, RLLP; $31,852.41 is sought by Levin 

Papantonio Rafferty; and $157,171.31 is sought by Alystock Witkin Kries & 

Overholtz. Additionally, the United States, which was also one of the Claimants, and 

was separately represented, seeks $32,106.69. 

Skanska has filed an opposition to the Claimants’ and the United States’ Bills 

of Costs. ECF Doc. 1364. Based on the opposition, Skanska does not object to the 

service of process fees or expert witness appearance fees. Thus, Claimants should be 

awarded $250.00 for service of process (as sought on the Aylstock Bill of Costs), 

$48.06 for witness fees (as sought on the Aylstock Bill of Costs), and $1852.69 for 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 3 of 24
Page 4 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

witness fees (as sought by Beggs & Lane).

2

 Skanska, however, objects in whole or 

in part to the other costs sought by Claimants. Each category of disputed costs is 

discussed below. 

A. Trial Technology

Claimants seek $39,200 for the services of trial technology vendor Courtcom. 

On Aylstock’s breakdown, the firm identifies these costs as being for transcripts – 

preparing video depositions; exemplifications – preparing trial exhibits; and printing. 

ECF Doc. 1353-1 at 3. While acknowledging § 1920 does not explicitly provide for 

trial technology costs, Claimants argue they should be able to recover these costs here 

because the Court wanted a paperless trial. 

Based on Courtcom’s invoice, it appears the majority of Courtcom’s work was 

devoted to cutting and working with video depositions, rather than converting hard 

copy exhibits to electronic exhibits.

3

 See ECF Doc. 1353-1 at 8-11. As discussed 

below, while the costs for video depositions are recoverable, the costs of preparing 

them for trial are not. See Jo Ann Howard & Assoc., P.C. v. Cassity, 146 F. Supp. 3d 

2 Beggs & Lane requested witness fees for Richard DiNapoli totaling $1,497.55. ECF Doc. 1353-

2 at 2. Of this amount, Beggs & Lane has since learned that $842.39 was for first class airfare. 

ECF Doc. 1354. Mr. DiNapoli does not know how much an unrestricted coach fare would have 

been at that time. Id. Claimants thus concede the airfare should be reduced by 50% to $421.19, 

id., making the total taxable costs for Mr. DiNapoli’s attendance at trial $1,076.36, and the total 

witness fees being sought by Beggs & Lane, $1,852.69 (rather than $2,273.88). 

3 The costs included are also for “emails, phone calls, and texts,” which are not taxable even if 

they relate to copying costs or exemplifications. See CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, 

Inc., 737 F.3d 1320, 1331 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 4 of 24
Page 5 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

1071, 1088 (E.D. Mo. 2015) (“video editing does not constitute ‘exemplification’ 

under § 1920(4)”); Hughes v. Priderock Capital Partners, LLC, 2020 WL 6491003, 

at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2020) (noting § 1920 does not explicitly provide for trial 

technology fees and courts in this Circuit have held such expenses incurred in 

connection with the presentation of evidence are not taxable); Akanthos Capital 

Mgmt., LLC v. CompuCredit Holdings Corp., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1306, 1309 (N.D. Ga. 

2014) (while recognizing the Eleventh Circuit has not spoken on the issue of whether 

electronic exhibits are taxable and thus such costs may be taxable, the court denied 

recovery given the “general preference for narrow construction of the statute”); 

Zendejas v. Redman, 2018 WL 7892097, at *5-6 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2018) (noting 

party could not recover costs for company which “edited objections and unnecessary 

pauses from video depositions, combined all of the parties’ video deposition clips, 

and played back relevant portions at trial”), report and recommendation adopted, 

2019 WL 1434602 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2019). 

Claimants argue the costs for Courtcom’s services are recoverable as they 

relate to exhibit formatting. However, even if formatting costs were recoverable, 

Claimants are already seeking ESI costs for converting hard copy documents 

produced in this litigation to electronic form. Also, the descriptions provided by 

Claimants for the “exemplification” are too vague for this Court to determine what 

“trial exhibits” (other than videos) were prepared, what was done to “prepare” them, 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 5 of 24
Page 6 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

or whether such exhibits were necessary. Regardless, the Court does not find 

authority supporting an award of these costs for trial technology under § 1920. See 

e.g., Mitchell-Proffitt Co. v. Eagle Crest, Inc., 2005 WL 8159671, at *6 (M.D. Fla. 

Nov. 28, 2005) (scanning and computer imaging of exhibits are not covered); Amgen, 

Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2017 WL 11680186, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2017) (denying costs 

for tutorials, animated trial demonstratives, exhibits, visual aids, and presentations 

for use during trial), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 11680184 (S.D. 

Fla. Feb. 15, 2017); Powell v. The Home Depot, USA, Inc., 2010 WL 4116488, at 

*21 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2010) (denying costs for multi-media/Powerpoint 

presentation); Battenfield of America Holding Co., Inc. v. Baird, Kurtz & Dobson,

196 F.R.D. 613, 615 (D. Kan. 2000) (declining costs for technical support for 

operation of video deposition system at trial); Yale Mortg. Corp. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 

N.A., 2012 WL 3597438, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2012) (“Technological support 

expenses are not included within these listed costs.”).4

 Thus, the Court does not find 

any of the $39,2005 sought by Claimants for Courtcom’s services to be taxable under 

§ 1920.

4 The Court notes that while Claimants argue the court in Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises found 

certain trial technology services to be recoverable, the Rosenfeld court actually denied recovery of 

an on-site trial tech. See Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, 2014 WL 1283361, at * 4 (S.D. Fla. Mar.

18, 2014).

5 In its breakdown, Aylstock seeks $39,200 for Courtcom. However, Courtcom’s invoices total

only $39,175.39, including hotel expenses and “TimeCoder Pro Sync Charges,” ECF Doc. 1353-

1 at 11, which are clearly not taxable. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 6 of 24
Page 7 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

B. Trial Daily Transcripts and Transcripts for Discovery Conferences

Claimants seek recovery of the costs of daily transcripts for the trial and the 

weekly discovery conferences that were held before the undersigned. While not 

necessarily objecting to the need for trial transcripts, Skanska objects to the cost for 

daily transcripts. Skanska also argues transcripts for the weekly discovery 

conferences were not necessary. 

For Claimants to recover these transcript costs, the Court must find they were 

“necessarily obtained for use in the case,” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2), and also that daily 

transcripts were necessary, rather than merely convenient. See King Cole 

Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 11505154, at *8 (S.D. Fla. 

Sept. 29, 2010). “The question of whether the expense of a daily transcript is to be 

taxed in favor of the prevailing party is a matter resting largely in the discretion of 

the trial court.” Syracuse Broadcasting Corp. v. Newhouse, 319 F.2d 683, 690 (2d 

Cir. 1963). 

Claimants explain that daily transcripts were needed because the parties were 

not provided with a deadline prior to trial for post-trial briefs, and because they had 

gotten daily transcripts they were ready to submit those briefs by October 29, 2021. 

The Court finds this cost to be taxable. First, there is no dispute the transcripts were 

used extensively in the post-trial briefs. Second, even though the parties agreed to 

submit post-trial briefs on November 8, rather than October 29 – that date was still 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 7 of 24
Page 8 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

only 17 days after the trial concluded. Thus, the Court finds daily transcripts were 

necessary to comport with the Court’s deadlines and Claimants are entitled to recover

$12,431.90 for daily trial transcripts.6

 See Zweizig v. Nw. Direct Teleservices, Inc., 

2019 WL 5889296, at *9 (D. Ore. Nov. 11, 2019) (awarding costs of transcripts 

which were reasonably necessary to the motions filed after trial); Currie v. Chevron 

U.S.A., Inc., 2007 WL 9747456, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 30, 2007) (courts should 

consider (1) the complexity of the trial; (2) the length of the trial; and (3) whether the 

parties are required to submit post-trial briefs or proposed findings to the court).

The Court also finds the costs of daily transcripts for the discovery hearings 

before the undersigned to be necessary, rather than a convenience to counsel. As 

Claimants point out, the undersigned was tasked with ensuring the parties stayed on 

track for trial with their discovery and that discovery disputes were handled 

expeditiously. The undersigned thus had weekly conferences with the parties, during 

which significant issues were raised and discussed. Because of the speed at which 

the Court was trying to resolve discovery disputes and requiring written submissions 

by the parties, only daily transcripts would have sufficed. Moreover, it cannot be 

disputed that these discovery hearings were necessary to the trial. Indeed, many of 

6 With regard to the trial transcripts, Skanska also argues that Claimants are seeking more than the 

actual cost for the transcripts because in addition to the Aylstock firm claiming the entire 

$12,431.90 on their Bill of Costs, ECF Doc. 1353-1 at 4, the other firms are also seeking recovery 

of 1/3 of the that amount. Skanska appears to be correct; thus, the Aylstock Bill of Costs will be 

reduced by $8,287.92. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 8 of 24
Page 9 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

the discovery issues the undersigned addressed, including whether certain 

depositions could be taken, were issues at the trial as well. See In Re Fundamental 

Long Term Care, Inc., 753 F. App’x 878, 883-84 (11th Cir. 2019) (taxing costs of 

hearing transcripts, including those from other actions, as necessary for use in the 

case). Claimants are entitled to recover $17,096.07 in daily transcript costs for the 

discovery hearings7 (all of which are contained on Aylstock’s Bill of Costs). 

However, this amount will be reduced by $2,368.29, since those costs were awarded 

to Claimants as sanctions. Thus, the total taxable costs for the daily hearing 

transcripts are $14,727.78. 

C. ESI Document Production Consultant’s Fees

Claimants seek $5,380.18 of costs paid to ESI Vendor, International Litigation 

Services, Inc. (“ILS”), ECF Doc. 1353-1 at 4, for formatting documents for 

production and the creation of load files. In Aylstock’s breakdown, the firm identifies 

these costs as “exemplification” costs and describes it as relating to “preparation of 

outgoing production.” ECF Doc. 1353-1 at 4. The breakdown also refers to the ILS 

invoice entries, which appear to be for (1) “checking/grooming/loading of data files 

from production” with the “charges based on total data size loaded on the Review 

Platform”; (2) “data intake – validation, inventory, assignment of evidence ID, and 

7 From the total of $17,839.07, the Court does not find the transcript cost or court reporter fee for 

the March status conference ($239.75), the canceled May 18 hearing ($95), the May 19 status 

conference ($218.25+$95), or the June 21 hearing ($95) to be necessary to the case. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 9 of 24
Page 10 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

data encryption”; and (3) “preparing documents for production including imaging, 

insertion of placeholders, performing quality control, and packaging for FTP.” Id. at

38-62. 

The Eleventh Circuit has not directly addressed whether costs related to ESI 

are taxable under § 1920; however, the Federal Circuit has considered the issue and 

determined that the statute allows for “only limited recovery of costs of electronic 

[discovery].” CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 737 F.3d 1320, 1325 

(Fed. Cir. 2013) (noting that in 2008, the statue was amended to omit the reference 

to “copies of paper”). According to the Federal Circuit, the costs to make duplicates 

in electronic format are recoverable under § 1920(4) as part of the “costs of making 

copies.” Id. at 1328. However, the “preparatory or ancillary costs commonly 

incurred leading up to, in conjunction with, or after duplication” are not recoverable. 

Id. 

In determining what those nonrecoverable costs are, the Federal Circuit 

discussed the stages of electronic discovery and defined them as follows: at stage 

one, the ESI vendor makes an image of the “source media” containing the requested 

documents; at stage two, the extracted documents are organized into a database and 

indexed, decrypted, de-duplicated, filtered, analyzed, searched, and reviewed to 

identify responsive documents and privileged information; and at stage three, the 

documents selected for production are copied onto a memory media. Id. at 1328-29. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 10 of 24
Page 11 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

While the Federal Circuit recognized that whether the costs associated with the tasks 

performed at stage one are taxable will depend on the circumstances of the case – for 

example, whether the production was subject to specific formatting or production 

requirements – and stage three costs are recoverable, the court found the costs 

associated with the tasks at stage 2 are not generally taxable. Id. at 1330-31. Those 

nonrecoverable tasks include: keyword searching, auditing and logging of files, 

extraction of proprietary data, acquiring, installing, and configuring a new data 

hosting server, litigation support tasks, decrypting, and deduplication. Id. at 1331-

32. 

This Court finds the Federal Circuit’s analysis to be persuasive and, thus, finds 

that only the costs for loading the data files and preparing the documents for copying 

and production are taxable. See e.g., Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E. 

& J. Gallo Winery, Inc., 718 F.3d 249, 262 (4th Cir. 2013) (rejecting argument that 

ESI costs were for exemplification and taxing only the costs for “conversion of native 

files to TIFF and PDF formats, and the transfer onto CDs”); Akanthos Capital Mgmt., 

LLC, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1306, 1312 (N.D. Ga. 2014) (denying recovery of costs for ESI 

vendor to process data, de-duplicate the data, index, search and review the data, data 

storage, and technical support); Performance Pricing, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2010 WL 

1153061, at *5 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2010) (“‘techniques of processing records, 

extracting data, and converting files, which served to create searchable documents, 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 11 of 24
Page 12 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

rather than merely reproduce paper documents in electronic form’ are not electronic 

equivalents of exemplification and copying”) (internal citations omitted); Bark v. 

United States Forest Svc., 2014 WL 12768161 at *5 (D.D.C. Dec. 31, 2014) 

(“production of an index for improving organization or access to the copied materials 

is not itself the act of ‘making copies’”). Based on the unredacted portions of the 

invoices provided by ILS, the Court calculates the taxable costs to be $4,606.85. 

D. Deposition Costs 

Although § 1920 does not specifically mention depositions, taxation of 

deposition costs is authorized by § 1920(2). See e.g., U.S. EEOC, 213 F.3d at 620. 

However, where the deposition costs were merely incurred for convenience, to aid in 

thorough preparation, or for purposes of investigation only, the costs are not 

recoverable. Id. Whether the costs for a deposition are taxable depends on the factual 

question of whether the deposition was wholly or partially “necessarily obtained for 

use in the case.” Id. at 620-21 (citing Newman v A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 648 F.2d 330, 

337 (5th Cir. 1981). The deposition need not be used at trial but must appear 

reasonably necessary at the time it is taken. Allen v. United States Steel Corp., 665 

F.2d 689 (11th Cir. 1982). The court may tax costs for the attendance of the court 

reporter and for the transcript. Other costs such as mini-transcripts, CDs, word index, 

postage, and delivery are not taxable as they are for the convenience of counsel. See 

George v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2008 WL 2571348 at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2008). 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 12 of 24
Page 13 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

Here, Claimants seek to recover deposition costs, consisting of the costs of the 

transcripts (including expedited transcripts and rough drafts) and for the video

recordings of those same depositions.8

 While Skanska acknowledges that deposition 

costs are, generally, recoverable, they object to all the depositions taken as being 

reasonably necessary to the case, to the recovery of both video costs and transcript 

costs, and to the recovery of costs for expedited transcripts. Skanska also argues the 

Aylstock firm already recovered $10,478.78 as sanctions and, thus, those deposition 

costs cannot be recovered again. 

As an initial matter, although Skanska argues not all the depositions were 

reasonably necessary, Skanska does not identify those unnecessary depositions. 

Also, Skanska does not dispute the witnesses deposed were identified by Skanska on 

its witness list. The Eleventh Circuit has upheld the taxation of a deposition where 

the losing party listed the deponent on its witness list. See e.g., U.S. EEOC, 213 F.3d 

at 621; New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Blue Water Off Shore, LLC, 2009 WL 2762814, 

at *2 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 28, 2009) (awarding costs for all depositions where all but 2 

were on plaintiff’s witness list and defendant relied on others in summary judgment 

motion). “Taxation of deposition costs of witnesses on the losing party’s witness list 

is reasonable because the listing of those witnesses indicated both that the plaintiff 

might need the deposition transcripts to cross-examine the witnesses, and that ‘the 

8 By the Court’s count the deposition costs relate to the depositions of at least 19 witnesses. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 13 of 24
Page 14 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

information those people had on the subject matter of this suit was not so irrelevant 

or so unimportant that their depositions were outside the bound of discovery.’” U.S. 

EEOC, 213 F.3d at 621 (citations omitted). Moreover, the Court notes that 11 of the 

19 witnesses testified at trial, one deposition was admitted into evidence, and several 

other transcripts were relied upon by Claimants in their spoliation motion or motion 

for partial summary judgment. Id. (“A district court may tax costs ‘associated with 

the depositions submitted by the parties in support of their summary judgment 

motions.’”) (citing Tilton v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 115 F.3d 1471, 1474 (10th Cir.

1997)); see also In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 753 F. App’x 878, 882 

(11th Cir. 2019) (finding no abuse of discretion by court in including $58,650.19 in 

deposition transcript and video costs even though not all depositions were used in 

dispositive motion). Thus, the Court finds the deposition costs for all the deponents 

are recoverable. Id. 

With regard to which costs are taxable, the Court finds the Claimants are 

entitled to recover both the stenographic costs and the video costs for these 

depositions. See e.g., Trawick v. Carmike Cinemas, Inc., 430 F. Supp. 3d 1354, 1371 

(M.D. Ga. 2019) (allowing recovery of both transcript fee and fee for videotaping 

deposition); New Hampshire Ins. Co, 2009 WL 2762814, at *2 (taxing costs for 

videos and transcripts); Katz v. Chevaldina, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1285, 1295 (S.D. Fla. 

2015) (awarding costs for video deposition where defendant met burden of showing 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 14 of 24
Page 15 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

it was reasonably necessary). While Skanska argues it was not necessary to videotape 

the depositions, it does not dispute that many of the deponents were out of town, that 

this case was on an accelerated discovery and trial schedule, or that it did not object 

to notice of deposition by video recording. See e.g., Morrison v. Reichhold 

Chemicals, Inc., 97 F.3d 460, 465 (11th Cir. 1996) (“when a party notices a 

deposition to be recorded by nonstenographic means, or by both stenographic and 

nonstenographic means, and no objection is raised at that time by the other party to 

the method of recordation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), it is 

appropriate under § 1920 to award the cost of conducting the deposition in the manner 

noticed”); Trawick, 430 F. Supp. 3d at 1371 (taxing costs for both video recording 

and stenographic transcript as necessary). 

The Court agrees with Skanska, however, that Claimants are not entitled to the 

costs for expediting the transcripts. Expedited costs may be recoverable if they were 

obtained out of necessity, rather than mere convenience. See George, 2008 WL 

2571348, at *6 (finding expedited and condensed transcripts, CD-ROMs, and 

expedited shipping not recoverable where claimant was unable to prove necessity, 

rather than mere convenience). Here, it appears Claimants expedited all deposition 

transcripts. Based on the undersigned’s involvement with this action, the 

undersigned is aware it may have been necessary to obtain expedited transcripts to 

address various discovery issues that arose during the undersigned’s weekly status 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 15 of 24
Page 16 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

conferences with the parties prior to trial. However, it would not have been necessary 

to expedite all the transcripts, and Claimants do not explain in their motion or reply 

why it was necessary to expedite each of the transcripts at issue. See id. It is also not 

clear why Claimants needed a rough transcript as well as a 2-day expedited transcript. 

Thus, the Court does not find the costs of rough transcripts to be taxable. See Kidd 

v. Mando Am. Corp., 870 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2012) (denying costs 

for rough drafts, condensed transcripts and a depo drive and stating “In the absence 

of a showing by the Defendant as to the necessity of what appear to be convenience 

costs included in its Bill of Costs, this court finds, as others have, that those costs are 

not taxable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2).”). 

The Court also agrees with Skanksa that the deposition costs should be reduced 

by the amount of those depositions costs Claimants recovered as part of the spoliation 

motion. The Court finds that amount to be $10,800.29 ($10,478.78 for Aylstock and 

$321.51 for Levin). See ECF Docs. 1277 at 3; 1277-11; 1364-3 at 2. 

Finally, Skanksa objects to the Claimants’ recovery of $22,065.00 in 

deposition costs for the services of Precision Trial Solutions. In the breakdown, 

Aylstock identifies these costs as being for “transcripts.” ECF Doc. 1353-1 at 5. 

However, a review of the invoices for Precision Trial Solutions shows the services 

they provided were for deposition support, including general technology support 

during the depositions. The Court can find no authority to support the recovery of 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 16 of 24
Page 17 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

such deposition technology costs. See e.g., Oirya v. Mando Am. Corp., 2023 WL 

4397711, at *3 (M.D. Ala. June 20, 2023) (finding no authority under § 1920 for 

taxing video conferencing because such service is a convenience for the parties). 

Once expedited costs, rough drafts and the services of Precision Trial Solutions 

are excluded, the Court finds $52,851.98 to be taxable as deposition costs as follows:9

Aylstock $32,537.49

Beggs $1,991.94

Levin $18,322.55

This amount, however, will be further reduced by the sanctions recovery of 

$10,800.29, for a total of $42,051.69. 

E. Exemplification and Copying Costs

The “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies” are 

recoverable if the copies were “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1920(4). The Eleventh Circuit has defined an “exemplification” under § 1920(4) 

as “[a]n official transcript of a public record, authenticated as a true copy for use as 

evidence,” and not the broader and common connotation that includes a “showing 

or illustrating by example.” Arcadian Fertilizer, L.P. v. MPW Indus. Srvcs., Inc., 

249 F.3d 1293, 1297 (11th Cir. 2001) (finding error in award of costs for videotape 

exhibits and computer animation). 

9

 See attached deposition breakdown chart. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 17 of 24
Page 18 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

Here, on behalf of the Claimants, the Aylstock firm seeks $3,435.0510 for the 

creation of magnetic boards as “exemplification” costs and the Levin firm seeks 

$3,063.75 for trial demonstratives and copies, ECF Doc. 1353-3. The Pro Legal 

invoice submitted by the Levin firm appears to be for an enlargement of an exhibit 

mounted onto a foam board. The Court finds that $3,063.75 in costs to be 

recoverable. See Arcadian, 249 F.3d at 1297 (including the cost of oversize 

documents as taxable costs). The Aluma Designs LLC invoice submitted by the 

Aylstock firm appears to be for enlargements of exhibits placed on magnetic boards. 

The Court also finds this cost to be recoverable. See Suppa v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., 

2008 WL 4629078, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2008) (taxing costs for trial boards 

containing multiple color photos of the accident scene, overall layouts of the decks 

of the boats, and layouts of the interior of the vessel under Arcadian); Walsh v. 

Paccar, Inc., 2007 WL 9797532, at *3 (D. Mass. July 25, 2007) (interpreting 

exemplification to include charts, trial boards and photographic enlargements). 

Claimants also seek $12,041.15 in “printing” costs charged by Pro Legal 

Copies, Inc. The Court finds the copying costs sought by Aylstock are not taxable. 

The invoices submitted do not identify what was copied. In Claimants’ 

memorandum, Claimants explain that the costs were for “impeachment sets” – 

10 As discussed above, Aylstock also identifies certain costs for Courtcom and ILS as 

“exemplification costs,” and those costs are discussed under trial technology costs. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 18 of 24
Page 19 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

copies of witnesses’ depositions for the Court, the witness, and opposing counsel. 

ECF Doc. 1353-11. In Aylstock’s breakdown of expenses, ECF Doc. 1353-1 at 5-

6, the firm identifies $9,895.12 as being for “trial – labeled, foldered copies of 

parties’ trial exhibits” and $2,146.03 as being for the impeachment copies. The 

Court does not find these costs to be taxable to Skanska.

First, the party moving for taxation of costs must present evidence “regarding 

the documents copied including their use or intended use.” Cullens v. Ga. Dep’t of 

Trans., 29 F.3d 1489, 1494 (11th Cir. 1994) (finding no error in court’s denial of 

photocopying costs); see also Helms v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1568, 

1570 (N.D. Ga. 1992) (“A prevailing party may not simply make unsubstantiated 

claims that such documents were necessary, since the prevailing party alone knows 

for what purpose the copies were made”), aff'd, 998 F.2d 1023 (11th Cir. 1993). The 

Court agrees with Skanska that the invoices submitted by the Aylstock firm are 

insufficient for the Court to make a determination as to whether the copies were 

necessary, particularly here, when, as noted by Claimants, the Court wanted a 

paperless trial. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mortham, 173 F.R.D. 313, 319 (N.D. Fla. 1997) 

(denying photocopying costs because there was no breakdown of the nature of the 

copies or their use or intended use at trial); Guetzloe Group, Inc., 2007 WL 2479335 

at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2007) (“while photocopies might be recoverable, Mask 

fails to itemize what the copies were for and fails to show that the copies were 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 19 of 24
Page 20 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

necessary to the case as opposed to being for counsel’s convenience”); For Play Ltd. 

v. Bow to Stern Maintenance, Inc., 2006 WL 3662339, *11 (S.D. Fla. Nov.6, 2006) 

(“Plaintiff has submitted no evidence from which the Court can determine that the 

photocopies at issue were necessarily obtained for use in the case, as opposed to, for 

example, copies that Plaintiff made merely for counsel’s convenience. Those costs 

therefore are not recoverable.”). 

Second, even if the Court were to accept Claimants’ representation that the 

costs were for impeachment sets of deposition transcripts, copies made for the 

convenience of counsel, including copies for witnesses, are not taxable. See Amgen, 

Inc., 2017 WL 11680186, at *4. Because it is unclear from the invoices which copies 

were made for the Court versus for counsel or the witnesses, the Court cannot say 

that the charges identified in the Pro Legal invoices submitted by the Aylstock firm 

were reasonably necessary for this case. See Amgen, Inc., 2017 WL 11680186 at *6 

(finding binders of exhibits for witnesses are for the convenience of counsel and the 

parties and, therefore, those costs should not be taxed); Bumpers v. Austal U.S.A., 

L.L.C., 2015 WL 6870122, at *11 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 6, 2015) (extra copies of exhibits 

made for convenience of counsel are not taxable); Desisto Coll., Inc. v. Town of 

Howey-In-The-Hills, 718 F. Supp. 906, 914 (M.D. Fla. 1989), aff'd sub nom. Desisto 

Coll., Inc. v. Line, 914 F.2d 267 (11th Cir. 1990) (“The defendants have not itemized 

the copies they claim were necessarily obtained for use of the case and those that 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 20 of 24
Page 21 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

were for their own convenience. The Court will, therefore, not award the defendants 

costs for photocopying.”). Moreover, the Court notes the costs included are not just 

for making copies but for folders and redwells. ECF Doc. 1353-1 at 103-04. 

F. The United States’ Bill of Costs

Included in the initial Bill of Costs submitted by Claimants was the United 

States Bill of Costs, ECF Doc. 1353-4 at 1-18, seeking $25,742.89 in deposition 

transcript costs. Skanska objected to these costs on several grounds, including that 

the invoices included by the United States only equaled $18,859.74. ECF Doc. 1364 

at 25. Skanska also argued the deposition costs should be reduced by the amount of 

expedited charges, limited to either stenographic or video costs, and, in any event, to 

the extent transcripts or videos were obtained by the other Claimants, are duplicative. 

In response, the United States amended its Bill of Costs, ECF Doc. 1365, explaining 

it inadvertently omitted some invoices and that in re-reviewing all of its invoices, the 

United States discovered additional costs which had not been included. Id. Thus, in 

its Amended Bill of Costs, the United States seeks $32,106.69 in costs. 

As an initial matter, the undersigned will consider the United States’ Amended 

Bill of Costs, as courts are permitted to consider amendments to timely-filed bills of 

costs. See Smith v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 369 F. Supp. 3d 1269, 1273-74 (M.D. 

Fla. 2019) (noting courts have permitted “parties to file an amended bill of costs after 

the deadline for doing so has passed, where the amended bill corrects an error or 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 21 of 24
Page 22 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

technical deficiency in an original, timely-filed bill of costs”). Furthermore, Skanska 

has not been prejudiced by the submission of the Amended Bill of Costs, as both the

original and amended bills only seek costs for deposition transcripts, and Skanska’s

arguments against taxing those deposition costs apply equally to both submissions.

Skanska also argues the United States should not be able to recover the 

deposition costs because they are duplicative of the costs that are being taxed against 

Skanska in favor of one of the other Claimants. Skanska, however, does not cite any 

authority (and the Court did not locate any) that would prevent one prevailing party 

from recovering its costs simply because another prevailing party incurred similar

costs. As stated above, under Rule 54(d)(1) costs should be allowed to the prevailing 

party. It is undisputed that the United States is one of the prevailing parties in this 

case. It is further undisputed that the United States was separately represented and 

that the costs incurred by the United States were actually paid by the United States. 

Thus, the undersigned finds the United States is entitled to recover its 

deposition costs, but not the costs related to expedited processing. Because 

$14,098.09 of the $32,106.69 in deposition costs the United States seeks is for 

expedited processing, ECF Doc. 1365-1, the undersigned finds the United States is 

entitled to $18,008.60 in costs.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 22 of 24
Page 23 of 23

Case No. 3:20cv05980-LC-HTC 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

The clerk is directed to tax costs in favor of the Claimants and against Skanska

in the total amount of $100,476.37.

11

At Pensacola, Florida, this 27th day of October, 2023. 

 /s/ Hope Thai Cannon HOPE THAI CANNON

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

11 The Court calculated the costs as follows: Aylstock - $49,270.43, Beggs & Lane - $7,988.59, 

Levin - $25,208.75, and United States - $18,008.60. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 23 of 24
Invoice AWKO Cost AWKO Rough AWKO Expedited AWKO Tech AWKO Taxable Levin Cost Levin Rough Levin Expedited Levin Taxable Beggs Cost Beggs Rough Beggs Expedited Beggs Taxable US Cost US Expedited US Taxable

D. Francis 2964.65 405.95 988.40 1570.30 2356.35 1164.90 1191.45

D. Francis 2 1512.50 1512.50 1441.20 644.00 797.20

D. Francis 3 2040.20 644.00 1396.20

D. Francis 4 1225.00 1225.00

G. Walker 1897.30 243.80 498.20 1155.30 1212.70 498.20 714.50

G. Walker 2 1105.00 1105.00

R. Hill 3263.94 377.20 918.40 1968.34 2173.70 1082.40 1091.30

R. Hill 2 945.00 945.00

N. Johnson 2664.15 311.65 758.80 1593.70 1653.20 758.80 894.40

N. Johnson 2 1320.00 1320.00

C. Burgess 1674.30 641.20 1033.10 1535.60 755.70 779.90

W. Bender 1642.60 523.60 1119.00 1142.50 523.60 618.90

W. Bender 2 1080.00 1080.00

E. Rubio 1219.70 453.60 766.10 1117.05 534.60 582.45

E. Rubio 2 1080.00 1080.00

P. McGlynn 1397.55 157.55 383.60 856.40 854.90 383.60 471.30

P. McGlynn 2 1475.00 585.00 890.00 1091.00 495.60 595.40

P. McGlynn 3 1771.65 203.55 495.60 1072.50

P. McGlynn 4 1261.25 633.75 627.50

S. Stephens 3068.10 354.20 862.40 1851.50 1935.50 862.40 1073.10

S. Stephens 2 1225.00 1225.00

R. Benton 2227.20 243.80 593.60 1389.80 1504.20 731.40 772.80

R. Benton 2 1105.00 1105.00

R. Gonzalez 1385.60 436.80 948.80 985.00 985.00 1037.40 514.80 522.60

T. Fulton 3197.70 1220.80 1976.90 2735.30 1220.80 1514.50

T. Fulton 2 1655.00 1655.00

N. Bishop 1891.25 251.85 613.20 1026.20 1481.80 722.70 759.10

N. Bishop 1180.00 1180.00

R. Rodgers 2650.60 305.90 744.80 1599.90 1795.90 877.80 918.10

R. Rodgers 2 1345.00 1345.00

T. DeMarco 2555.60 784.00 1771.60 1320.00 1320.00 1008.90 0.00 1008.90

T. DeMarco 2 1290.00 1290.00

T. DeMarco 3 2591.91 885.36 50.00 1656.55

Cpt. L. Allen 1607.60 307.05 413.85 886.70 1620.55 691.00 929.55

J. Rogier 1897.80 204.70 498.40 1194.70 1197.70 587.40 610.30

J. Rogier 2 555.00 555.00

B. Thach 850.00 850.00 3307.29 382.95 932.40 1991.94 1134.04 30.64 1103.40

T. Beddow 1105.00 1105.00 2077.20 1017.75 1059.45

T. Beddow 2 3116.20 1489.75 1626.45

Totals 45699.65 2502.40 9391.01 1268.75 32537.49 24644.70 864.80 5457.35 18322.55 3307.29 382.95 932.40 1991.94 32106.69 14098.09 18008.60

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1389 Filed 10/27/23 Page 24 of 24