UNITED STATES DISTRI CT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADRIANN BORUM , et al. , : REDACTED

– FOR PUBLIC FILING : Plaintiff s , : Civil Action No.: 16

- 1723 (RC) : v. : Re Document No s .: 151, 153, 154, : 156, 157, 190 BRENTWOOD VILLAGE , L LC, e t al. , : 194, 195 : Defendant s
. : MEMORANDUM OPINION
G RANTING IN P ART AND D ENYING IN P ART D EFENDANTS ’ M OTION FOR R EASONABLE A TTORNEYS ’ F EES AND C OSTS ; D ENYING P LAINTIFFS ’ M OTION FOR R EASONABLE A TTORNEYS ’ F EES AND E XPENSES ; G RANTING IN P ART AND D ENYING IN P ART D E FENDANTS ’ B ILL OF C OSTS I. INTRODUCTION On August 25, 2016, O NE DC, a community organization, joined a class action by residents of the Brookland Manor apartment complex (“Brookland Manor”) against Defendants Brentwood Associates, L.P., Mid

- City Financial Corporation, and Edgewood Management Corporation, for violation s of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601

– 19, and the D.C. Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), D.C. Code §§ 2

– 1401 to 2

– 1404. Plaintiffs alleged that the planned redevelopment of the complex by Defendants was discriminatory and would force certain resi dents out of their homes. Summary judgment was granted for the Defendants on March 30, 2020. See Mem. Op. Granting Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 1 80

. Now pending before the Court are three different fee

- and cost

- related matters

. The first concerns a dispute d

uring discovery , which ar ose when Defendants learned that an employee of ONE DC had deleted relevant electronically stored information (“ESI”) after filing of the suit

. On Defendants’ motion , this Court granted sanctions against Plaintiff ONE DC , including a reasonable amount of associated fees and expenses

. See Mem. Op. Granting in Part and Den. in Part Defs.’ Mot. f or2 Sanctions, ECF No. 136. However, the parties were unable to reach an agreement regarding the appropriate quantum of fees and costs , and Defendants filed the present motion with proposed fees and expenses

. Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees, ECF No. 151. Plaintiffs subsequently filed the second motion pending before the Court: their own motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and
expenses regarding (1) efforts to compel production of certain documents during discovery and (2) costs incurred in opposing Defendants’ unsuccessful motion to compel responses to interr ogatories issued to absent class me mbers. Pls.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees, ECF No. 153. T he third pending matter is Defendants’ Bill of Costs, which concerns strictly taxable costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and this Court’s Local Rule 54.1

. Defs.’ Bill of Costs,
ECF No. 190

. Plaintiffs maintain that the Bill of Costs is improperly calculated, and that given the financial situation of the Plaintiffs, imposition of costs in this matter is inequitable. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs only in part , as it disagrees with Defendants’ calculation of some costs. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses b ecause the Court can not conclude that Defendants unjustifiably withheld certain documents or issu ed interrogatories on absent class members in bad faith

. Additionally, Plaintiffs failed to obtain the requisite leave of the Court before filing this motion , even after being warned of the consequences of doing so

. Lastly, the
C ourt grants Defendants’ Bill of Costs only in part because pro hac vice fees are not taxable, Defendants’ improperly calculated some of their transcription costs, and imposing full costs would be inequitable. 1

1 Along with these filings , both parties have moved , unopposed, for leave to file a number of related d ocuments under seal. See Pls.’ Mots. File Under Seal , EC F No s
. 154, 156, 157, 194; Defs.’ Mot. File Reply Under Seal, ECF No. 195. The underlying docume nts all include information designated as confidential by the parties pursuant to the Court’s December 15, 2016 Protective Order , ECF No. 36 . The Court concludes that all involve significant privacy interests3 II. BACKGROUND
A. Defendants’ Motion for Reasonable A ttorneys ’ Fees and Costs , ECF No. 151 During discovery, Defendants learned that Yasmina Mrabet, an employee of ONE DC , had deleted relevant ESI after Plaintiffs filed their suit. Defendants moved for sanctions pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority and Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defs.’ Mot. Sanctions, ECF No. 94

- 2. As relief, Defendants requested that the Court dismiss ONE DC from this case, and that the Court award Defendants fees and costs associated with discovery and defending against O NE DC’s claims

. Id

. The Court granted Defendants’ motion for sanctions only in part. Mem. Op. Granting in Part and Den. in Part Defs.’ Mot. f or Sanctions,
ECF No. 136

. The Court f ound that an award of some fees and costs was appropriate under Rule 37(e)(1) to cure the prejudice to Defendants resulting from the spoliation

. Id

. However, the Court also found that ONE DC did not act intentionally to deprive Defendan ts of the lost ESI, and therefore did not grant any claim

- dispositive sanction s. Id

. The Court specifically ordered
ONE DC to reimburse Defendants for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs Defendants incurred in (a) preparing for and conducting the portions of the depositions of Dominic Moulden,
O NE DC’s corporate representative , and Yasmina Mrabet relevant to the spoliation issues, and (b) litigating the motion for sanctions

. Order Granting in Part and Den. in Part Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions , ECF No. 135. The Court further ordered Defendants to submit a motion for reasonable fees and costs if they c ould not resolve the matte r after meeting and conferring with
ONE DC. Id

. It is undisputed that the parties met and conferred and that they were unable to reach an a greement on the amount of fees and expenses to be awarded

. See Defs.’ Mot. Attys’

that outweigh the need for public access and a ccordingly grants the motions for leave to file under seal

. See Hardaway v. D.C. Hous. Auth. , 843 F.3d 973, 980 (D.C. Cir. 2016).4 Fees at 2

– 3 ; Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 2 , ECF No. 155. On September 16, 2019, Defendants filed their motion for reasonable attorneys ’ fees a nd costs. Defs.’ Mot. Atty s’ Fees

. Defendants request a total of $115,133.78 calculated as follows: (1) $34,398.53 in fees

as sociated with preparing for and taking the portions of the depositions of Moulden and Mrabet related to the spoliation issue; (2) $2,006.25 in costs associated with these depositions; (3) $60,039 .00 for litigating the sanctions motion; and (4) $18,690.00 f or litigating the instant fee motion. Defs.’ Reply Supp. Mot. Attys’ Fees at 1 1 , ECF No . 158. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for attorneys ’ fees and costs alleging, inter alia , that (1) expenses related to the Moulden and Mrabet depositions are excessive ; (2) the hours spent by Defendants’ counsel litigating the motion for sanctions , Defs.’ Mot. Sanctions,

are excessive and supported by inadequate records ; and (3) Defendants are not entitled to fees and costs associated with the instant motion because Defendants did not provide ONE DC with sufficient information during the meet

- and

- confer process to analyze the appropria teness of Defendants’ fee demand. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees

. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request the Court find reasonable attorneys’ fees for the relevant activity total no more than $33,034. Id

. at 9

. The Court is now left to determine the appr opriate amount of fees and costs that are to be awarded to the Defendants.
B. Plaintiffs ’ Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses , ECF No. 153 Plaintiffs also move for an order requiring Defendants to pay the reasonable fees and expenses incurred i n connection with (1) Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel interrogatories issued to absent class members; and (2) Plaintiffs’ efforts to compel production of certain financial documents. (1) Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Related to Interroga tories5 During discovery, Defendants issued a set of interrogatories to the named head

- of

household of all 3

- , 4

- or 5

- bedroom apartments in the complex

. See Defs.’ Mot. Compel Interrogs. at 3 , ECF No. 79. Plaintiffs objected to the se interrogatories on absent class members , and Defendants thereafter filed a motion to compel responses. Defs.’ Mot. Compel Interrogs

. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to compel on the grounds that Defendants failed to provide a legitimate basis that would a llow discovery of the roughly 130 absent class members. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Mot. Compel at 13 , ECF No. 91. The Court subsequently reviewed Defendants’ proposed interrogatories and Plaintiffs’ objections and denie d Defendants’ motion to compel

. Order Den. Defs.’ Mot. Compel, Granting Pls.’ Mot. Compel, ECF No. 115. The Court f ound that all of Defendants’ proposed interrogatories s ought information that was either already available or not relevant to the decision of common questions

. Id

. at 2

– 3. Plaintif fs now claim that Defendants are responsible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B) for covering the expenses and fees Plaintiffs incurred in opposing Defendants’ unsuccessful motion to compel discovery

. Pls.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 11

. Plaintiff s allege that Defendants knew or should have known that courts generally forbid discovery on absent class members and therefore Defendants were not justified in making their motion

. Defendants argue the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ fee motion because Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer with Defendants before filing this f ee m otion , Plaintiffs failed to obtain leave of the Court as required by the Revised Scheduling Order, ECF No. 96, and Plain tiffs cannot demonstrate that an award of fees under Rule 37 is appropriate. Defs.’ Opp’n Mot. Attys’ Fees
at 16

– 18 , ECF No. 161. (2) Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Related to Document Production Dispute6 D uring discovery there was a n additional dispute over the production of certain so

- called “pro forma” financial models ( and associated documents ) relating to the finances of the planned Brookland Manor project

. See Order Den. Defs.’ Mot. Compel, Granting Pls.’ Mot. Compel at
5. Plaintiffs filed a motion to com pel production of these models and documents

. Pls.’ Mot. Compel Produc., ECF No. 100

- 2

. Defendants opposed the motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs had failed to comply with the procedures set forth by the Court in the Revised Scheduling Order

. See Defs.’ Mot. Den. Pls.’ Mot. Compel, ECF No. 101. Defendants further claimed that the discovery dispute concerned proprietary financial documents that were immaterial to Plaintiffs’ claims and were thus irrelevant to th e case
. Id

. at 2. T he Court granted Plaintiffs ’ motion to compel production. See Order Den. Defs.’ Mot. Compel, Granting Pls.’ Mot. Compel

. The
Court f ound that documents relating to the financial viability and finances of Brookland Manor, including the “pro forma” financial models, were relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Id

. at 6. The Court fur ther noted that Mid

- City Financial ha d not moved for a protective order and ha d failed
to meet its burden to show either that the financial models were trade secrets or other confidential research, or that it would be harmed by production to non

- competitor Plaintiffs

. Id

. In the instant motion, Plaintiffs claim they are due reasonable expenses and fees incurred in obtaining what they consider improperl y withheld discovery. Pls.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 4

. Plaintiffs contend that sanctions are appropriate under three different rationales : (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (a)(5)(A) that states “ the court must .

. . require [ the offending party] . . . t o pay the movant’s reasonable expenses” ; (2) the fact that defense counsel improperly withheld and obscured the existence of relevant documents and th erefore improperly certified Defendants’ discovery responses in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (g)(3) ; and (3) the Court’s inherent powers to issue sanctions. Id

. at 4

– 5. Defendants object on the grounds that although7 Plaintiffs may have met and conferred regarding fees incurred in connection with the motion to compel “pro forma” model s, Plaintiffs failed to obtain leave of the Court before filing the motion ( as required by the Court’s Scheduling Order )

. Defs.’ Opp’n Mot. Attys’ Fees at 10 . Defendants also claim that (1) Mid

- City Financial ’s objections to production were substantially justified, (2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(3) is not applicable, and (3) invoking the Court ’s inherent authority is unjust absent a finding of bad faith. Id.
C. Defendants’ Bill of Costs, ECF No . 190 On March 30, 2020, this Court granted Defendant s’ motion for summary judgment , resolving all claims in Defendants’ favor

. See Mem. Op. Granting Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J.,
ECF No. 1 80

. Defendants now seek $34,607.90 in taxable costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Local Civil Rule 54. Defs.’ Bill of Costs, ECF No

. 190. Defendants calculated this total as follows: (1) $400.00 in Clerk’s fees for pro hac vice admissions of certain membe rs of the defense team to this Court ; (2) $33,744.50 for the costs for transcripts of depositions that were used in various filings ; (3) $163.40 in transcript costs for the hearings on January 9, 2019 and February 22, 2019; and (4) $300.00 in copying costs , the maximum amount recover able under Local Rules

. Edney Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Bill of Costs ¶¶ 4

– 7 , ECF No. 190

- 1

. Plaintiffs counter that their financial situation makes the imposition of costs in this matter inequitable. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Cost s, ECF No. 194

- 1. The y argue that imposi ng even moderate costs would be financially devastating and ask the Court to de cline award ing of costs. Id

. at 15. Plaintiffs request that if the Court chooses to award costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the total should be only $15,635 .00 , as Defendants have improperly included non - taxable costs

. Id

. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that pro hac vice admission fees are not recoverable, D efen dants ’ claimed deposition fees include non

- taxable expenditures and seek double recovery on certain8 deposition s , and hearing transcripts are not recoverable under Local Rule 54.1(d). Id. at 3, 5, 13,
14.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Defendants’ Motion for Reasonable Attorneys ’ Fees and Costs, ECF No. 15 1 As explained, D efendants are due reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the spoliation issu e
. The C ourt must determine reasonable attorneys’ fee s using the “lodestar”

m ethod, whereby the number of hours reasonably expended is multiplied by a reasonable hourly
rate. See DL v. District of Columbia , 924 F.3d 585, 588 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (citing Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Hodel , 857 F.2d 1516, 1517 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ). In assessing whether an attorneys’ fees award is reasonable, the Court must (1) determine what constitutes a reasonable hourly rate, (2) assess whether the hours billed are reasonable, and (3) consider whether adjustments or multipliers to the lodestar are warranted. See Martini v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n , 977 F. Supp. 482, 484 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing Covington v. District of Columbia , 57 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). The Court will also discuss Defendants’ request for costs incurred in preparing for and conducting the portions of the depositions relevant to the spoliation issue and fees associated with bringing the instant fee petition.
1. Defendants’ Hourly Rate s are Reasonable An initial note: because the billing rates of different attorneys and their respective time spent working on the matter has varied, Defendants’ counsel Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP ’s (“Norton Rose Fulbright”) effective billing rate has fluctuated depending on the filing. To resolve the instant motion, the Court determines that Norton Rose Fulbright’s effective billing rate for the sanctions litigation is $532.26

— i.e. , $60,039 .00 in requested fees divided by 112.8 claimed hours. Schapira Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees ¶¶ 46

– 47, ECF No. 151

- 1. The9 Court determines that Norton Rose Fulbright’s effective billing rate for the preparing and conducting the two depositions is $572.16

— i.e. , $34,398.53 in requested fees divided by 60.12 claimed hours spent on the spoliation issue. And finally, the Court determines that Norton Rose Fulbright’s effective billing rate for the instant motion is $588.66

— i.e. , $18,690 .00 in requested fees divided by 31.75 claimed hours. Schapira Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Reply Supp. Mot. Attys’ Fees ¶¶ 8

– 10 , ECF No. 158

- 2. The reasonableness of an attorney’s hourly rate should be considered in light of the prevailing market rates in the relevant community for lawyers with comparable skills, experience, and reputation. See Salazar ex rel . Salazar v. District of Columbia , 809 F.3d 58, 62 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing Covington , 57 F.3d at 1107). Attorneys’ fee matrices are “ one type of evidence that ‘provide[ ] a useful starting point’ in calculating the prevailing market rate.”
Ventura v. L. A. Howard Constr. Co. , 139 F. Supp. 3d 462, 463

– 64 (D.D.C. 2015) (citing Eley v. District of Columbia , 793 F.3d 97, 100 (D.C. Cir. 2015)). For example, the D.C. Circuit has established that courts may look to the Laffey Matrix, 2 a schedule of appropriate fees for attorney s conducting litigation in Washington, D.C., based on years of experience. Covington , 57 F.3d at 1105. The party requesti ng attorneys’ fees should present evidence that the requested hourly rate constitutes “ the prevailing rate for attorneys in this community for this type of

2 The Laffey Matrix was established from the schedule of prevailing rates compiled in Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 572 F. Supp. 354, 371 (D.D.C. 1983), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984), overruled in part on other grounds, Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Hodel , 857 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988). See Eley , 793 F.3d at 100. The original Laffey Matrix, which the U.S. Attorney’s Office maintains and updates, adjusts rates for inflation generally using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. See Serrano v. Chicken

- Out Inc. , 209 F. Supp. 3d 179, 195 (D.D.C. 2016). A competing version, the LSI Laffey Matrix, adjusts rates for inflation of the price of legal se rvices in particular, based on the Legal Services Index of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Id

. The LSI Laffey rates often “exceed those found in the USAO Laffey Matrix.” Id

.10 litigation by attorneys with comparable experience.” L.A. Howard Constr. Co. , 139 F. Supp. 3d
at 46 4. Although neither party cites the Laffey Matrix, it indicates that the rates charged by Defendants’ counsel Norton Rose Fulbright are at the upper end, and in some cases exceed , the prevailing rates in Washington, D.C. , but not to such an extent that the Court can definitively state they are unreasonable. 3 Additionally, t his Circuit has previously held that “an attorney’s usual billing rate is presumptively the reasonable rate

. ” Baylor v. Mitchell Rubenstein & Assocs.,
P.C. , 735 F. App ’ x 733, 73 5 (D.C. Cir. 2018)

. The Defendants have further indicated that Norton Rose Fulbright charged a discounted rate for many of the personnel working on the case given the volume of work and the importance of the client relationship

. Defs.’ Mot. Atty s’ Fees

a t 3

– 4 ; Schapira Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees ¶ ¶ 10

– 25. Importantly, Plaintiffs do not object to the billing rates set by Norton Rose Fulbright. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 6 , ECF No. 155. Although Defendants neither specify the positio n nor seniority of lawyers and staff billed , which makes it difficult to verify against the Laffey matrix ( s ee Schapira Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Atty s’ Fees ¶¶ 10

– 25 (listing only the standard hourly rate for each personnel who worked on the matter) ) , given that Norton Rose Fulbright’s billing rates purport to be the rates negotiated with the client, are not challenged by Plaintiff, and are not unreasona bl e , the Court will accept them.
2. Defendants’ Total Claimed Hours Ar e Reasonable but the Court Cannot Verify Defendants’ 30% Calculation
T he C ourt must also consider whether the number of hours billed for work by counsel are reasonable. The moving party bears th is burden. Reyes v. Kimuell , 270 F. Supp. 3d 30, 3 7

3 See USAO Attorney’s Fees Matrix

— 2015

- 2020 , https://www.justic e.gov/usao

dc/page/file/1189846/downloa d.11 (D.D.C

. 2017) (citing Herrera v. Mitch O’Hara LLC , 257 F. Supp. 3d 37, 46 (D.D.C. 2017)). The fee request “must be sufficiently detailed to permit the District Court to make an independent determination whether or not the hours claimed are justified.” Herrera , 257 F. Supp. 3d at 47 (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec ’ y of Def. , 675 F.2d 1319, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). Productivity is the key factor that determines whether an attorney’s time was reasonably expended. See Ventura v. Bebo Foods, Inc. , 738 F. Supp. 2d 8, 33

– 34 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing Copeland v. Marshall , 641 F.2d 880, 89 1

– 9 2 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ). To this end, a court should exclude hours that are “duplicative, excessive, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id

. at 33

– 34 (citing Copeland , 641 F.2d at 892); see also Herrera , 257 F. Supp. 3d at 47; Serrano , 209 F. Supp. 3d at 198. Defendants indicate that Norton Rose Fulbr ight personnel spent 200.4 hours preparing for and taking the depositions of Moulden and Mrabet and addressing the spoliation issues ahead of those depositions. Schapira Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Atty s’ Fees ¶ 37. Defendants seek to recover 30% of th ose costs. Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 7. Defendants claim to have calculated this percentage by reviewing the transcript s of the depositions, communicating both with the individuals who prepared for and conducted those depositions, and review ing related documents and correspondence

. Schapira Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees ¶ 39. Plaintiffs counter that 30% is merely a rough estimate and that only 5.6% of the deposition transcripts even touch on the spoliation issue. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ F ees at 3

– 4. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Court award no more than 5.6% of the fees resulting from the Mrabet and Moulden depositions. Id

. at 6.
T he billing records submitted by Defendants indicating t h e overall hours spent preparing for and conducting the two depositions (and litigating the sanctions motion) appear reasonable ,12 and Plaintiffs do not challenge the overall figures directly . But while the descriptions may be sufficiently detailed for overall billing purposes , the y provi de little insight into how many of those overall hours were specifically devoted to the relevant spoliation issue. Accordingly, t his
Court has no way of verify ing Defendants’ calculation that 30% of the overall time was dev oted to the spoliation

. For exa mple, the time entry for Rudolph, M. on September 17, 2018, merely lists 8.25 hours for: “Review and analyze documents produced by ONE

- DC to identify key documents for deposition; confer with M. Levitt regarding same.” Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees Ex. 2 (Schap ira Decl.) at 10 , ECF No. 151

- 3. To the Court, it seems that this time could well have been dedicated to issues outside of spoliation. See In re Meese , 907 F.2d 1192, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (reducing the fee award “where no mention is made of the subject matter of a meeting, telephone conference or the work performed during hours billed”); In re Olson , 884 F.2d 1415, 1428 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (reducing fees when “multitudinous billing entries

. . . wholly fail to state , or to make any reference to the subject discussed at a conference, meeting or telephone conference”)

. Plaintiffs seize on this lack of specificity, and correct ly note that o nly 5.6% of the total deposition transcripts of Mrabet and Moulden touch on the spoliation issue. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 4. But, as Defendants counter , merely looking at the number of deposition
pages devoted to the spoliation issue and directly translating that into the amount Defendants should recover is also quest ionable

. Defs.’ Reply Supp. Mot. Attys’ Fees at 8 , ECF No. 158. An issue that required little preparation might consume a significant portion of the deposition, while many hours could be spent preparing for a line of questioning that i s quickly resolved

. Given the problems with both sides’ methodologies, and given that justifying the reasonableness of the fees is Defendants’ burden in this context, this Court awards Defendants 10 % of their requested time13 associated with preparing for and taking the portions of the depositions related to the spoliation issue

. Defendants request ed 60.12 hours in connection with the spoliation issue

— i.e. , 30% of 200.4 hours

. Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 4, 6; Schapira Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees ¶¶ 28, 40

. T he Court will therefore reduce this amount and grant Defendants 10 % of 200.4 hours for a total of 20.04 hours , which, at the billing rate of $572.16 per hour , amounts to a total of $ 11,466.09 in connection with the spoliation issue. An analogous reduction is not required with respect to the request for hours directly spent litigating the sanctions motion. Defendants’ indicate they spent 112.8 hours researching and preparing two briefs, reviewing evidence, conferring with opposing counsel, and preparing to
arg ue the motion. See Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 7. Plaintiffs suggest that this is an unreasonably excessive amount of time for experienced counsel to spend on a single, “rather straightforward” motion , but do not clearly explain why this is so. Pls.’ Opp ’n Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 7 . Their main support is a case finding it per se unreasonable to spend 2 40 hour s creating a discovery dispute fee petition, but, of course, Defendants here are requesting fewer than half of those hours (and moreover, a sanctions motion seems more complex than a fee petition )

. Id. (citing DL v. D istrict of C olumbia , 256 F.R.D. 239, 245 (D.D.C. 2009)). The Court therefore concludes that the hours requested are reasonable and awards the full amount ($60,039.00 ) requested in connection with the sanctions motion.
3. Costs Associated with the Spoliation In addition to reasonable attorneys’ fees, t his Court previously ordered O NE DC to reimburse Defendants for the reasonable costs Defendants incurred in preparing for and conducting the portions of the depositions of Moulden and Mrabet relevant to the spoliation issue

. Order Granting in Part and Den. in Part Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions , ECF No. 135

. The14 Defendants calculated that the total costs for th ose activities is $6,687.49. Schapira Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Atty s’ Fees ¶ 50. Defendants are again requesting 30% of that amount to reflect their determination of the proportion associated with spoliation. Defendants allege to have calculated total costs by adding ( a ) costs associated with the Moulden deposition : $2,736.77 , (b) costs associated with the Mrabet deposition : $993.89, and (c) travel costs in preparation for and conducting th ose two depositions, including discounts: $2,956.83

. Id. ¶ 49. While this Court does not dispute the travel costs associated with preparation for and conducting the two depositions, invoices later filed with the Court show Defendants have miscalculated the transcription costs of both depositions

. See Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 2, 6 , ECF No. 190

- 3

. The Moulden deposition cost $2,379.80 and the Mrabet deposition cost $864.25. In an apparent oversight, Defendants seem to have also included in their instant calculation roughly $486 in late payment and outstanding finance charges

. See id. Thus, w hile Defendants may have actually paid a total of $ 3,730.66 in relation to the two depositions, Defendants were only billed $3,244.05. Additionally, the Court notes that Defendants have also included the costs for these two depositions in their Bill of Costs. Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 2, 6 . In order to prevent a double recovery, the Court will deduct the taxable portion s of the deposition costs that the Court has awarded in Section III(C)(3) , infra

. Defendants may still recover reasonable costs associated with the deposition beyond the basic costs awarded below in connection with Defendants’ Bill of Costs, ECF No. 190. Therefore, for the instant issue, Defendants may only recover a percentage of the $2,956.83 in travel c osts. Based on th e previous finding that 10 % represented a reasonable estimate of the spoliation

- specific costs in Section III(A)(2), supra , the Court will award the same percentage of Defendants ’ travel costs. Cf. Westfahl v. District of Columbia , 18315 F . Supp. 3d 91, 102 (D.D.C. 2016) (reducing the total cost s award ed to reflect the plaintiff’s overall success) . Accordingly, Defendants are awarded 10 % of $2,956.83 for a total of $ 295.68 in costs.
4. “ Fees on Fees ” Award Defendants also claim 31.75 hours for fees associated with the preparation and submission of the instant fee petition

. Defs.’ Reply Supp. Mot. Attys’ Fees at 11. T he “time reasonably devoted to obtaining attorneys ’ fees in the context of litigation where the court must be petitioned for such an award is itself subject to an award of fees

. ” Cobell v. Norton , 231 F. Supp. 2d 295, 306

– 07 (D.D.C. 2002) (quoting Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA , 672 F.2d 42, 62 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

. This is commonly known as a “fees

- on - fees” award. Thi s Circuit has held that hours reasonably devoted to fee petitions are compensable but “fees on fees must be reasonable, and not excessive .” Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation , 80 F. Supp. 3d 149, 162 (D.D.C. 2015) ( citing Boehner v. McDermott , 541 F. Supp. 2d 310, 325 (D.D.C. 2008) )

. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not provide ONE DC with sufficient information during the meet

- and

- confer process to analyze the appropriateness of their fee demand which created the need for furt her litigation. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 8

– 9. Defendants provided Plaintiffs with a PDF chart containing the hours billed for Defendants’ fees on fees motion, but Plaintiffs claim the chart was insufficient as it was unsortable and did not contain accompanying narratives describing the time that each timekeeper billed. Id. However, there is a difference between failing to meet and confer entirely and failing to provide information in an accessible and digestible form at. Plaintiffs were able to review the billing hours even though the PDF was not sortable. See Okemgbo Decl. Supp. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees ¶ 3 , ECF
No. 155

- 1. And while the Court agrees that Defendants should have ideally included16 correspond ing narrative time descriptions , the Court cannot state that the meet and confer was insufficient without reviewing the PDF chart , which Plaintiffs failed to include in their opposition to Defendants’ motion. Furthermore, Defendants ’ filing contains the C ertificate of Conference as required by Local Rule 7(m)

. Defs.’ Mot. Atty s’ Fees at 10

. This Court cannot state that the meet and confer was insufficient, nor is t his Court able to state with any certainty that 31.75 hours is excessive for the fees on fe es request. See Robinson v. District of Columbia , 341 F. Supp. 3d 97, 123 (D.D.C. 2018) (granting the plaintiff’s fees on fees request for forty hours); McNeil v. District of Columbia , 233 F. Supp. 3d 150, 162

– 63 (D.D.C. 2017) (granting the plaintiffs ’ fe es on fees request for nearly fifty hours). Defendants are therefore awarded the full amount requested

— $18,690 .00

— in connection with the instant motion. In conclusion, Defendants are awarded $11,466.09 in fees associated with the spoliation issue, $ 60,039.00 in fees for litigating the sanctions motion, $295.68 in costs, and $ 18,690.00 in attorneys’ fees for the instant motion

. Defendants are therefore awarded a total of $90,490.77 with respect to their motion.
B. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reasonable Attor neys’ Fees and Expenses, ECF No. 153

First, a procedural note. O n July 23, 2018 , t his Court issued a Revised Scheduling Order

. ECF No. 69. That Order additionally notified parties of courtroom procedures relating to discovery dispute s : It is FURTHER ORDERED that, before bringing a discovery dispute to the Court’s attention, the parties must meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve the dispute informally. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute, they must contact chambers to arrange for a telephonic conference with the Court. The parties must obtain leave of the Court before filing any motion relating to a discovery dispute. Any discovery motions that are filed prior to obtaining such leave may be summarily denied for fail ure to comply with this order. Revised Scheduling Order , ECF No. 69.17 Plaintiffs have previously failed to comply with the Revised Scheduling Order and were

“ warned that further disregard of the Court’s Orders will have consequences .” Order Den. Defs.’ Mot. Compel, Granting Pls.’ Mot. Compel at 5

– 6

. This Court is not aware of the parties meet ing and conferring in good faith in an attempt to resolve the pending dispute

— for example, Plaintiffs ’ motion does not include the required Local Rule 7(m) m eet

- and

- confer statement , and the record also does not show Plaintif f

s obtain ed leave of the Court before filing the instant motion

. T he motion arguably falls within the scope of the Scheduling Order, as it pertains to a discovery dispute . Pls.’ Mot. Att ys’ Fees at 4

– 12, ECF No. 153 ( Plaintiffs argue they should be awarded (1) fees in connection with their motion to compel production of certain financial documents and (2) expenses and fees incurred in opposing Defendants’ unsuccessful motion to compel interrogatories on absent class members ). Accordingly, this Court would be justified in exercising its discretion to dismiss the motion as Plaintiffs have failed to abide by the Court’s previous order, even after Plaintiffs were warned of potential consequences. Se e, e.g. , U.S. ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Ctr. of Am., Inc. , 235 F.R.D. 521, 528

– 29 (D.D.C. 2006) (denying motion for failure to comply with L ocal R ule 7(m) ). Nonetheless, in the interest of resolving this dispute on the merits a nd given that the Court’s scheduling order permitted, rather than required, the dismissal of non

- compliant filings , this Court will consider Plaintiffs’ instant motion for fees and costs on its merits.
1. Plaintiffs Cannot Recover Expenses and Fees Incurred in Compelling Production of Documents Plaintiffs a r gue that s anctions relating to the “pro forma” financial models are appropriate through a t least three avenues: ( a ) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37; ( b ) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26; and ( c ) the Court’s inherent authority

. For the reasons detailed below, however, the Court denies awarding the associated expenses and fe es.18 a. Sanctions Are Not Appropriate Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 7 Rule 37(a)(5)(A) states that if the motion for compelling production is granted, “ the court
must

. . . require [ the offending party ] . . . to pay the movant ’ s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney ’ s fees .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)

. Here, the Court granted P laintiffs ’ motion to compel production. See Order Den. Defs.’ Mot. Compel, Granting Pls.’ Mot. Compel at 6

. However, Rule 37(a)(5)(A) contains a savings clause providing that “the court must not order this payment if: (i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjus t.” A party is “substantially justified” in nondisclosure or objection to production “ if reasonable people could differ in their views ” on the issue or motion

. Am. Fed ’ n of State, C n ty., & Mun. Emps

. Local 2401 v. D istrict of Columbia , No. 09

- CV

- 1804, 2013 WL 12398482, at *2 (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2013)

. Here, w hile the Court ultimately granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production, Defendants’ nondisclosure of the “pro forma” models was based on reasonable objections that created a genuine di spute for the Court to resolve. See , e.g. , Holland v. Freeman United Coal Mining Co. , No. 07

- 1050 , 2008 WL 11501533, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2008) (denying fees and costs associated with a motion to compel production when the parties had legitimate dispute s about whether certain types of evidence were relevant ). Specifically, Defendants argue d that the “pro forma” models d id not reflect a study or analysis of the economic viability of 3

- , 4

- , or 5

- bedroom apartments at Brookland Manor and were thus irrelevant to this litigation

. Defendants expressed thei r specific objection s and responses to interrogatory request n umber 13, which sought “[a]ll documents relating to the financial viability and finances of the redevelopment19 project.” See Pls.’ Mot. C ompel Produc. Ex. C at 12 , ECF No. 100

- 7. Defendants objected to the phrase “financial viability and finances” and “redevelopment project” as vague and ambiguous as well as the request being “overbroad to the extent that it seeks information that is
not r easonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id

. Defendants ’ counsel also sent Plaintiffs a letter that reiterated their objections and perceived justifications for withholding documents. Id. Ex. G, ECF No. 100

- 11. While the C ourt ultimately rejected these arguments, it did not issue any opinion suggest ing Defendants ’ objection s were illegitimate or without reason

. In addition, Defendants maintained their objections and litigated against Plaintiffs’ motion to completion. Cf. McCormick v. District of Columbia , No. 07

- CV

- 570, 2012 WL 13047305, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 24, 2012) ( finding defendants were not substantially jus tified in resisting production because they acquiesced and did not litigate their objections to completion). Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants ’ objection to production was substantially justified. See , e.g. , Pierce v. Underwood , 487 U.S. 552, 565 ( 1988) (holding that “substantially justified” has “never been described as meaning ‘justified to a high degree,’ but rather has been said to be satisfied if there is a ‘genuine dispute’” or “ justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person ”) ; A thridge v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. , 184 F.R.D. 200 , 205

– 06 (D.D.C. 1998) (collecting cases determining whether withholding production was substantially justified). And for th at reason, it must decline to award sanctions under Rule 37. b. Sanctions Are Not Appr opriate Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 Plaintiffs state that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3) requires sanctions against parties who improperly certify discovery responses
. See Pls.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 9 ; s ee also F ed. R

. Civ

. P

. 26 (g)(3) (“I f a certification violates this rule without substantial justification, the court, on motion or on its own, must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party on whose20 behalf the signer was acting, or both.” )

. Plaintiffs do not cite any case law to support their position that Defendants ’ failure to disclos e the “pro forma” models indicates their initial document production was not formed after a reasonable inquiry and hence Defendants improperly certified their discovery responses. Additionally, Defendants had substantial justification for withholding the “pro forma” models , as discussed in Section III(B)(1)(a) , supra . Therefore, the Court cannot state that Defendants improperly certified their discovery responses and will not impose sanctions u nder Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3).

c. Sanctions Are Not Appropriate Under the Court ’s Inherent Authority As discussed, Plaintiffs failed to comply with both this Court’s previous Revised Scheduling Order as well as Local Civil Rule 7(m), which requires counsel to “discuss the anticipated motion with opposing counsel in a good

- faith effort to determine whether there is any opposition to the relief sought and, if there is, to narrow the areas of disagreement. ” D.D.C. Civ. R. 7(m)

. The Court will not ince ntivize future disobedience by awarding expenses and fees when Plaintiffs have flouted procedures of which they were previously warned. See , e.g. , Walker v. District of Columbia , 317 F.R.D. 600, 605 (D.D.C. 2016) (denying award of fees when
p laintiffs fai led to comply with a standing court order as well as Local Civil Rule 7(m)). Additionally, a finding of “bad faith” is typically required for the Court to exercise its inherent authority. See Priority One Servs., Inc. v. W & T Travel Servs., LLC , 502 F. App ’ x 4, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“A district court has inherent authority to order sanctions, including attorney’s fees, if a party has ‘acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’”) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. , 501 U.S. 32, 45

– 46 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted) ) ; Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep ’ t of Veterans Affairs , 134 F. Supp. 3d 63, 66 (D.D.C. 2015) (“[I]t is settled that a finding of bad faith is required in order to impose sanctions under the Court ’ s inherent power.”). There is no evidence of bad faith by21 either party or that Defendants withh e ld the “pro forma” models out of intent to mislead the Court or delay proceedings

. See , e.g. , Citizens for Responsibility , 134 F. Supp. 3d at 66 (“Bad faith requires finding an intent unreasonably to delay the proceedings.”). Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise its inherent authority and will not award expenses and fees associated with Plaintiffs ’ motion to compel production.
2. Plaintiffs Cannot Recover Expenses and Fees Incurred in Opposing Defendants’ Unsuccessful Motion to Compel Interrogatories As mentioned, Defendants issued interrogatory requests on absent class members. But a s courts in this district have n oted , courts usually disfavor discovery against absent class members. Barham v. Ramsey , 246 F.R.D. 60, 62 (D.D.C. 2007) ( “[D]iscovery against absent class members under Rule 33 and 34 cannot be had as a matter of course.” )

. W ritten discovery of absent cl ass members “may be had ‘relevant to the decision of common questions, when the interrogatories or document requests are tendered in good faith and are not unduly burdensome, and when the information is not available from the representative parties.’” Id

. at 63 (quoting Dellums v. Powell , 566 F.2d 167, 187 (D.C. Cir. 1977)) ; s ee also Moore v. Johnson , 303 F.R.D. 105, 108 (D.D.C. 2014) (denying discovery on absent class members because the requesting party failed to show that discovery from absent class me mbers was warranted or the information sought was unavailable from the representative parties ); United States v. Trucking Emp., Inc. , 72 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D.D.C. 1976) (holding that interrogatories of absent class members may be appropriate when “the circum stances of the case justify such action”). Here, the Court concluded that issuing interrogatories to absent class members was not justified as the proposed interrogatories s ought information that was either already available or not relevant to the decisio n of common questions

. Order Den. Defs.’ Mot. Compel, Granting Pls.’ Mot. Compel at 2

– 3

.22 Again, u nder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B), if a motion to compel is denied, the court “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the mova nt, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). “ But the court must not order this payment if the motion was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust .” Id

. It is not entirely clear that Defendants’ motion to compel interrogatories on absent class members was substantially justified. As courts hav e noted, discovery requests issued to absent class members may be used
as “ a tactic to take undue advantage of the class members ” or as “a strategem to reduce the number of claimants

. ” Dellums , 566 F.2d at 236 (quoting Brennan v. Midwestern United Life
In s. Co. , 450 F.2d 999, 1005 (7th Cir. 1971) ) . Additionally, t he Court was unconvinced by all of Defendants’ arguments as to why the interrogatories issued on absent class members was relevant to the decision of questions common to the class. Order Den. De fs.’ Mot. Compel, Granting Pls.’ Mot. Compel at 3

– 5

. The Court was similarly unconvinced by Defendants’ arguments that certain interrogatories sought information unavailable from other sources. Id . at 3

– 4. Indeed, the Court observed that the wording of at least one interrogator y did “ little to support Defendants’ assertion that these interrogatories were submitted in good faith to obtain otherwise unavailable information .” Id . at 5. Nonetheless, the Court must consider other circumstances that would make an award of expenses unjust . Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). Defendants contend that the eight

- month delay Plaintiffs took in filing the instant fee motion and the circumstances of its filing demonstrate that it is being brought as a retalia tory tactic. Defs.’ Opp’n Mot. Attys’ Fees at 1 . While the Court does recognize th at Plaintiffs ’ instant fee motion was filed on the heels of Defendants ’ fee23 petition, the timing of Plaintiffs’ motion is not a dispositive factor. See, e.g. , In re Subpoe nas to Folliard , No. 10

- mc - 789, 2012 WL 907763, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2012) (“The timing of [defendant’s] Motion alone does not make the Motion inappropriate or eliminate the genuine dispute that existed regarding the production of the documents. ”). Addi tionally, h owever , t his Court is unable to f ind any record of the parties meeting and conferring regarding Plaintiffs’ request for fees and expenses incurred in opposing Defendants’ unsuccessful motion to compel. See, e.g. , Defs.’ Opp’n Mot. Attys’ Fees at 17 (“ Plaintiffs never informed Defendants that they intended to move for fees related to prevailing again st Defendants’ motion to compel .” )

. 4 Local Rule 7(m) requires that “[b] efore filing any nondispositive motion in a civil action , counsel shall discuss the anticipated motion with opposing counsel in a good

- faith effort to determine whether there is any op position to the relief sought and, if there is, to narrow the areas of disagreement. ”
D.D.C. Civ. R. 7(m). Failure to adhere to the Local Rules is appropriate grounds for denying a party’s motion. See, e .g. , 12 Percent Logistics, Inc. v. Unified Carrier Registration Plan Bd. , 316 F. Supp. 3d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 2018) ( “[T] he court denies Plaintiffs ’ motion for failure to meet and confer as required by Local Civil Rule 7(m) .”); Henao v. Smiths Detection, Inc. , No. 18

- cv 2564, 2019 WL 2476631, at *1 (D.D.C. June 13, 2019) (same ); English v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. , 323 F.R.D. 1, 25 (D.D.C. 2017) (“This Court routinely denies non

dispositive motions for failure to comply with Rule 7(m).”)

. While the Court may be hesitant to resolve a peti tion for fees on Rule 7(m) grounds, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any effort to diligently confer. But see DC2NY, Inc. v. Acad.

4 There is , in contrast, evidence that the parties met and conferred regarding Plaintiffs’ request for fees concerning their motion to compel production of the “pro forma” financial models. See Pls.’ Mot. Attys’ Fees at 2 ; Defs.’ Opp’n Mot. Attys’ Fees at 6; Pls.’ Reply Supp. Mot. Attys’ Fees at 9 , ECF No. 169.24 Bus, LLC , No. 18

- cv - 2127, 2020 WL 1536219, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2020) ( declining to resolve petitioner’s motion on 7(m) gr ounds because t he parties dispute d the extent to which the meet and confer was meaningfully satisfied ). Even if Plaintiffs were convinced that a meet and confer would be unfruitful, as may very well have been the case here, they “ must still make a good

- fa ith effort to confer.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd. , 202 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2016). The Court previously warned Plaintiffs about potential consequences of failing to abide by courtroom procedures. Order Den. Defs.’ Mot. Compel, Granting Pls.’ Mot. Compel at 6. T he Court therefore holds that Plaintiffs ’ failure to demonstrate any meaningful effort to a bide by Local Rule 7(m) before filing their motion for expenses and fees incurred in opposing Defendants’ unsuccessful motion to compel are sufficient circumstances that make an award of expenses unjust under Rule 37(a)(5)(B). This is particularly tr ue given that it may very well be the case that Defendants’ motion to compel interrogatories on absent class members was substantially justified regardless. To summarize, Defendants had substantial justification for withholding the “pro forma” financial mo dels. In addition, discovery on absent class members is disfavored and at times abusive, but there is not enough evidence to conclude that Defendants were not substantially justified in their motion to compel . Furthermore, the Court questions the timing of Plaintiffs’ instant motion and notes the lack of meet and confer as required by Local Rule 7(m) as well as the disregard of the Court’s Revised Scheduling Order, ECF No. 69. Thus, b ecause the Court has found that Plaintiffs should not be award ed expens es and fees incurred in compelling the production of “pro forma” financial models from Defendants , nor are Plaintiffs due expenses and fees incurred in opposing D efendants ’ unsuccessful motion to compel, Plaintiffs’ instant motion is denied in full.25 C. Defend ants Bill of Costs, ECF No . 190 After winning on summary judgment, Defendants have subsequently filed their Bill of
Costs , which contains several charges that Plaintiffs maintain are not recoverable. 5 See Defs.’ Bill of Costs, ECF No. 190 ; Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs, ECF No. 194

- 1. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that costs “should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Under the applicable federal statute, taxable costs include, among other thin gs: (1) Fees of the c lerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;

. . . (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are neces sarily obtained for use in the case ;

. . . . 28 U.S.C. § 1920. This District’s Local Rules provide additional guidance, and set forth a more specific list of costs that the c lerk “shall tax” if “requested to do so in the bill of costs,” which include: (4) Docket fees and costs specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1923 ;

. . . (6) Costs, at the report er’s standard rate, of the original and one copy of any deposition noticed by the prevailing party, and of one copy of any deposition noticed by any other party, if the deposition was used on the record, at a hearing or trial; (7) Costs, at the reporter’s standard rate, of the original and one copy of the reporter ’ s transcript of a hearing or trial if the transcript: (i) is alleged by the prevailing party to have been necessary for the determination of an appeal within the meaning of Fed. R. App. P. 39(e), or (ii) was required by the court to be transcribed;

. . . (9) Other costs of copying up to $300.00;

. . . .

5 Defendants filed a Bill of Costs, ECF No. 189, on April 20, 2020 which was ostensibly filed in error under the wrong event

. See Not ice of Error (April 21, 2020)

. On April 21, 2020, Defendants re

- filed their Bill of Costs, ECF No. 190. This Court is unable to distinguish between the two documents but will only refer to more recently filed version

.26 D.D.C. Civ. R. 54.1(d). The Supreme Court has noted that “liability for costs is a normal incident of defeat.” Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August , 450 U.S. 346, 352 (1981). Although costs are generally awarded as a matter of course, the district court has discretion in allowing, disallowing, or apportioning
costs. See Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp. , 568 U.S. 371, 377 (2013) (finding tha t “Rule 54(d)(1) codifies a venerable presumption that prevailing parties are entitled to costs” but that “the word ‘should’ makes clear that the decision whether to award costs ultimately lies within the sound discretion of the district court”) ; see also Taniguchi v. Kan Pac ific Saipan, Ltd. , 566 U.S. 560, 565 (2012) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) gives courts the discretion to award costs to prevailing parties.”)

. However, “a court may neither deny nor reduce a prevailing party’s request for cos ts without first articulating some good reason for doing so.” Baez v. U.S. Dep ’ t of Justice , 684 F.2d 999, 1004 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (en banc) (per curiam). Consequently , “federal courts have placed on the unsuccessful parties some burden of showing circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption favoring the prevailing party.” Id

. In class actions, such as here, the presumption of awarding costs to the prevailing party still stands, but only the named representatives may be held liable. See White v. Sundstrand Corp. , 256 F.3d 580, 585 (7th Cir. 2001) (“ Neither the federal rules nor the due process clause of the fifth amendment would tolerate ” any award of costs ag ainst absent class members).
1. Plaintiffs ’ Financial Hardship Original plaintiffs Adriann Borum, Loretta Holloman, and ONE DC filed this case on August 25, 2016. See Compl. , ECF No. 2. Holloman later voluntarily dismissed her individual claims. See Orde r Granting Unopposed Mot. for Vol un tary Dismissal, ECF No. 56. A plaintiff class was certified by the Court’s February 12, 2018 Order. See Order Granting in Part Pls.’27 Mot. Class Certification, ECF No. 57. Borum was subsequently replaced by Marita Moore as class representative. See Mem. Op. Granting in Part Pls.’ Mot. at 2 , ECF No. 132. Moore brought discriminatory statement claims in her individual capacity as well. See Mem. Op. Granting Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 3 n.2, 19 n.17 , ECF No. 180. Moore ’s and Borum’s individual claims were later voluntarily dismissed. Id. at 4 , 19 n.17. The Court also decertified the class with respect to Plaintiffs’ discriminatory statements claim , leaving ONE DC as the sole plaintiff for that claim. Id. at 9 n.10. The Court therefore concludes tha t , for the purposes of awarding costs , the universe of potential payors includes the various named plaintiffs: Adriann Borum, Loretta Holloman, Marita Moore , and ONE DC. Plaintiff s do not dispute Defendant s are the prevailing party but argue the costs should be waived based on inability to pay. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 2. C ourt s may consi der financial hardship when awarding costs. See In r e Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. , 221 F.3d 449, 464 (3d Cir. 2000) (“[I]f a losing party is indigent or unable to pay the full measure of costs, a district court may

. . . exempt the losing party from paying costs.”)

. Some c ourts have d en ied costs outright ba sed on inability to pay. See, e.g. , N.O. by Orwig v. About Women Ob/Gyn, P.C. , 440 F. Supp. 3d 565, 567

– 68 (E.D. Va. 2020) (declining to award costs due to plaintiff’s inability to pay and ongoing medical bills). Courts have additionally declined to award costs if a party could pay but payment would be crippling. See Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal. , 178 F.3d 1069,
1079

– 80 (9th Cir. 1999) (remanding to district court to reconsider award where unemployed basketball coach would be rendered indigent if fo rced to pay)

. Although “ attorneys may agree to bear the risk of a costs award ” in a class action, White , 256 F.3d at 58 6, that decision is ultimately between client and counsel. The Court is not aware of any cost

- paying agreement between Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel

— i.e. Covington and28 Burling LLP and Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights —but counsel may have agreed to cover the prevailing party’s costs nonetheless

. In any case , w hen a district court chooses to consider the unsuccessful pa rty ’s financial hardship, “it should require substantial documentation of a true inability to pay.” Guevara v. Onyewu , 943 F. Supp. 2d 192, 196 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Chapman v. AI Transp. , 229 F.3d 1012, 1039 (11th Cir. 2000) ; see also Johnson v. Holway , 522 F. Supp. 2d 12, 17 (D.D.C.2007) (“[U]nsubstantiated assertions of financial hardship . . . are an insufficient basis on which to deny costs.”). For their part, P la intiffs indicate that Moore is subject to circumstances that renders her unable to maintain employment. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 2. Moore ’s sole source of income has been

. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs .’ Bill of Costs at 2 . However, in determining whether a losing party bears sufficient financial hardship to avoid an award of costs, courts consider not only monthly income but other assets and discretionary expenditures. See Onyewu , 943 F. Supp. 2d at 196 (declining to override the presumption in favor of awarding costs because plaintiff presented an incomplete financial picture and did not account for the equity in plaintiff’s home); s ee also Cherry v. Champion Int’l Corp. , 186 F.3d 442, 447 (4th Cir. 1999) (reversing district court’s denial of costs because it failed to consider party ’s marital property and use of 401(k) distributions to buy discretionary items). I n this case, Moore

. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 2 , ECF No. 194-4.

. Id. Furthermore, Moore

. Id. As Plaintiffs point out, Defendants are well aware of Moore’s financial status, given29 Defendants “serve as Ms. Moore’s landlord and receive paperwork certifying her financial status

. ” Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 2. Plaintiffs have provided enough details that the Court has an accurate estimate of
M oore’s net worth. C f. Savage v. Price , No. 15- cv -791, 2018 WL 8787743, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2018) (declining to override the presumption of awarding costs because plainti ff “ failed to provide more than unsubstantiated assertions of financial hardship ”). Further financial imposition on Moore would be financially ruinous and this Court will exercise its discretion and exempt her from paying any costs and fees. See , e.g. , Anderson v. Columbia Cty. , No. CV112- 031, 2015 WL 1959083, at *2–3 (S.D. Ga. May 1, 2015) (finding substantial documentation of inability to pay based on evidence that one plaintiff was a decedent ’ s estate with no assets and the other an elderly woman receiving only social security benefits ). Additionally, the previous class representative, Adriann Borum, wh ile employed at the time of her involvement with the litigation, has similar financial circumstances that would also make the imposition of costs inequitable. See Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. C , ECF No. 194-5. And finally, although not all of the members of the class receive HUD Project -Based Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments or D.C. Housing Authority tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers— e.g. , Loretta Holloman, see Compl. ¶ 87 —most , if not all, of the class members are low -income residents

. ECF No. 4-3 ¶ 18. M any members of the class are subject to various extenuating circumstances such that any costs would be unduly burdensome

. See, e.g. , Compl. ¶¶ 82 –83 ; 4 -6 ¶ 2; 4- 8 ¶ 3 ; Pls.’ Mot. TRO Ex. 2 ¶ 2 , ECF No. 27-2. See also Latson v. Clarke , No. 1:16CV00039, 2019 WL 459713, at *2 (W.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2019) (declining to award costs due to losing party’s “disabilities and living situation”); Cross v. Roadway Express , No. 93 C 2584, 1994 WL 592168, *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 1994) (waiving costs against indigent party who was an unemployed single30 parent to three children, suffered from severe mental health problems, and received $840 a month in Social Security payments)

. The Court will therefore exercise its discretion and e xempt all class representatives from payment

. See , e.g. , Onyewu , 943 F. Supp. 2d at 196 ( stating a district court may exempt an indigent party from paying c osts) ( citing In re Paoli , 221 F.3d at 464 ). However, ONE DC was also a plaintiff in this case and many of the concerns that t his
Court m ay have in imposing costs on an individual do not apply to an organization. ONE DC brought this action on its own as well as on behalf of its members who are residents of Brookland Manor

. Compl. ¶ 109

. ONE DC, by its own account, has only two full

- time staff membe rs and an intern. Id. ¶ 112. But m inutes from ONE DC’s 2014 retreat indicate that the organization hoped to achieve a $ 1 m illion budget in the next five years. Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Sealed Attach. 1, Ex. 26 at 4, ECF No. 143

- 2; Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Seale d Attach. 4, Ex. 30 at 12, ECF No. 143

- 5

. In 2015, ONE DC finished the year under budget by nearly $40,000 , Defs.’
Mot. Summ. J. Sealed Attach. 2, Ex. 27 at 170:21

– 24 , ECF No. 143

- 3 , and o ver the l ast several years, ONE DC has received numerous donations in excess of $10,000. Id. at 102:11

– 13, 21

– 24;
103:9

– 18; 104:2

– 5; 106:20

– 24; 107:20

– 108:7

. Furthermore, ONE DC’s financial statement ending December 31, 2016 indicates that the organization ’ s total income for the year was over $500,000 and had total assets in excess of $600,000. Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Sealed Attach. 12,
Ex. 45 at 4

– 6, ECF No. 143

- 13. Sufficient evidence has been presented demonstrating ONE DC’s ability to pay that imposing co sts would not be unjust even though the rest of the class is exempt from pay ment due31 to inability to pay

. 6 See Moore v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc. , 762 F.2d 1093, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“[A]pportionment of costs is in the sound discretion of the di strict court”)

. Cf. Aird v. Ford Motor Co. , 86 F.3d 216, 223

– 24 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (apportioning costs based on involvement with the litigation) ; cf. In re Paoli , 221 F.3d at 469 (“In dividing costs among multiple parties on one side of the bar

— either preva iling or non

- prevailing

— the court may choose to impose costs jointly and severally or to disaggregate costs and to impose them individually.”).
2. Pro Hac Vice Fees Are Not Recoverable In this Circuit, it does not appear to be settled whether pro hac vice admission fees are recoverable costs. Other Circuits are split on the issue as well. Compare Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , 579 F.3d 894, 898 (8th Cir. 2009) (concluding that pro hac vice fees are recoverable as fees of the clerk unde r § 1920) and United States v. Emergency Med. Assocs. of Ill

. , Inc. , 436 F.3d 726, 730 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding pro hac vice fees) with Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Cent. Tex

. Airborne Sys. Inc. , 741 F. 3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that “ § 1920 is narrow, limited, and modest in scope” and

6 Plaintiffs request that if the Co urt finds that ONE DC is able to pay costs, while the individual plaintiffs are not, the cost of Moore ’s and Borum’s depositions be excluded entirely as they were pursuing individual claims to which ONE DC was not a party. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 15 n.17. The Court agrees that ONE DC should not be held financially liable for another party’s claims. See White , 256 F.3d at 586 (“A few cases hold that costs awards should be several, rather than joint, when different groups of plaintiffs raise di stinct issues that give rise to segregable costs of litigation.”). Moore, in her individual capacity, brought a discriminatory statement claim that was dismissed. See Mem. Op. Granting Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 19 n.17. Borum, in her individual capaci ty, brought a disparate impact claim that was also dismissed. Id. Accordingly, because the Court declines to impose these deposition costs on ONE DC, and it would be inequitable to impose them on Borum and Moore, the costs associated with their depositio ns are not recoverable. The Court ’s following analysis of Defendants’ Bill of Costs therefore excludes any costs , when applicable, associated with the depositions of Borum and Moore.32 therefore declining to award pro hac vice fees) and Eagle Ins. v. Johnson , 162 F.3d 98 (11th Cir. 1998) (affirming district court ’ s determination that pro hac vice fee s are not taxable as costs because they are not authorized by federal statute ). While § 1920 refers generally to “fees of the clerk,” § 1914 suggests that fees of the clerk include “ additional fees only as are prescrib ed by the Judicial Conference of the United States .” 28 U.S. C. § 1914 (b). Plaintiffs are correct in their observation that the Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees does not make any reference to pro hac vice admission fees. See Kalitta Air , 741 F.3d at 958 (“ The Judicial Conference ’ s fee schedule does not refer to pro hac vice fees at all .”). The Supreme Court has further emphasized that “taxable costs are limited by statute and are modest in scope.” Taniguchi , 566 U.S. at 573. This Court sees no reason to find pro hac vice fees as taxable costs when they are neither expressly stated by statute nor mentioned by the Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees. The Court adopts the reasoning of Kalitta Air and finds that § 1920 doe s not authorize awarding pro hac vice fees. 7 Accordingly, the Court hereby declines to award $400 in pro hac vice fees to Defendants.

7 Courts have declined to award pro hac vice fees on other grounds. See Schmitz

- Werke GmbH + Co. v. Rockland Indus., Inc. , 271 F. Supp. 2d 734, 735 (D. Md. 2003) (holding that

“ pro hac vice fee is an expense of counsel, not the client, and is thus not recoverable”); Crossfit, Inc. v. Quinnie , 232 F . Supp. 3d 1295, 1313 (N.D. Ga. 2017) (same); Coach, Inc. v. Siskiyou Buckle Co. , No. 03:11

- CV

- 00486

- HZ, 2012 WL 13055491, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 30, 2012) (finding pro hac vice fees are part of the overheard of running a law firm and are therefore not recover able). Other jurisdictions have declined to award pro hac vice fees absent a showing as to the insufficienc y of local counsel. See, e.g. , Shumaker v. Comm ’ r of Soc. Sec. , No. 1:11CV2801, 2013 WL 6501300, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2013) (declining to awar d pro hac vice fees as it was plaintiffs choice to use out

- of

- district counsel); Lofton v. McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharm. , No. 3:05

- CV

- 1531

- L, 2011 WL 206165, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2011) (declining to award pro hac vice fees because the defendant ch ose “to be represented by counsel not admitted to practice in the district” ). Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, by their own account, has an established Washington, D.C. office with a “ team of 92 lawyers [that] practices civil and appellate litigation at all levels .” See Norton Rose Fulbright, Location: Washington, D.C. , https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en

- us/locations/washington

- dc . Absent any showing of33 3. Costs for Deposition Transcripts Are Recoverable in Part Defendants request $33,744.50 in transcript ion costs for deposi tions that Defendants claim were used in various filings. Defs.’ Bill of Costs ¶ 5. The Local Rules allow the c lerk to tax “the costs, at the reporter ’ s standard rate, of the original and one copy of any deposition noticed by the prevailing party, and of one copy of any deposition noticed by any other party, if the deposition was used on the record, at a hearing or trial.” D.D.C. Civ. R. 54.1(d)(6)

. Plaintiffs argue that § 1920 limits recovery only to “transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the

cas e” and a dditional optional costs related to a deposition are not properly taxable . 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2); Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 5

– 6. However, t he necessity of obtaining a deposition transcript is ascertained “as of the time the deposition was taken.” Holway , 522 F. Supp. 2d at 18 ; accord Youssef v. FBI , 762 F. Supp. 2d 76, 86 (D.D.C. 201 1). “ Depositions are

‘ necessarily obtained ’ if they are us ed to prepare for future depositions, motions, pretrial proceedings, or trial

. ” Sykes v. Napolitano , 755 F. Supp. 2d 118, 12 0 (D.D.C. 2010) . This also
why local Norton Rose Fulbright counsel was insufficient for Defendants’ purposes, the Court is furt her dis inclined to award pro hac vice fees. Defendants are specifically trying to recover the pro hac vice fees for Lisa Schapira, Anne Rodgers, Gerry Lowry, and John Byron. Defs.’ Bill of Costs ¶ 4. This is not the first pro hac vice appearance in this district for at least one of these individuals. Anne Rodgers, for instance, has appeared pro hac vice in this district at least twice before while employed by Norton Rose Fulbright or its predecessor Fulbright and Jaworski. See Mot. Appear Pro Hac Vice, Grynberg v. BP P.L.C. , 08

- cv - 00301 (D.D.C. Aug. 7, 2008), ECF No. 75 ; Abecassis v. Wyatt , 669 F. Supp. 2d 130, 131 (D.D.C. 2009) (listing Anne Rodgers as counsel). The cost for lifetime admission to this Court is $206. See U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia , Application for Admission , https://www.dcd.uscourts.g ov/sites/dcd/files/Attorney%20Application%20Admission%20

- %20Updated%202

- 26

- 20.pdf . It would be against the interests of this Court and against the principles of judicial economy if counsel were incentivized to repeatedly pay recoverable pro hac vice fees rather than the cost of lifetime admission to practice before the Bar of this Court. See, e.g. , Brown v. Colgate

- Palmolive Co. , No. 1 : 04CV

- 0782

- DFH

- WTL, 2006 WL 3197455, at *2 (S.D. Ind. May 17, 2006) (denying pro hac vice fees as it was “ not clear why th e attorneys chose to pay the pro hac vice fee four times in four cases . . . [rather than] seek lifetime admission to this court ’ s bar ”).34 includes depositions used in motions for summary judgment. See Holway , 522 F. Supp. 2d at 18 (“Local C ivil Rule 54.1 makes clear that depositions used in the parties ’ summary judgment papers are taxable.”) ; s ee also Sykes , 755 F. Supp. 2d at 120 (finding that depositions relied upon in the parties’ summary judgment briefs are taxable ). Plaintiffs do not appear to dispute the necessity of any particular deposition transcript but rather claim that Defendants have improperly included in their Bill of Costs (a) Realtime transcription services; (b) “ rough ” ASCII and expedited transcription s ; (c) preparation of exhibits; (d) LEF sync file preparation ; and ( e ) shipping and handling. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 6.

a. Costs for Realtime Transcription Services Are Not Recoverable Defendants may only recover costs “ for printed or electronicall y recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case .” U.S.C. § 1920(2). Defendants have not sufficiently demonstrated that the Realtime transcription was “necessarily obtained” nor that the costs were within the bounds of the reporter’s stand ard rate per Local Rule 54.1(d)(6) . Defendants assert they “needed to incur real time [sic] costs so that their attorneys could efficiently depose and defend witnesses,” but provide no specifics beyond this general claim nor point to any case law that would support th eir position. Defs.’ Reply Supp. Bill of Costs at 8 , ECF No. 195

- 2. Courts that have considered the issue have awarded Realtime costs only when it was considered necessary. See, e.g. , Dindinger v. Allsteel , Inc. , 853 F.3d 414, 431 (8th Cir. 2017) (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion when awarding Realtime costs due to the complexity of the case) ; Kinzenbaw v. Case LLC , No. 05

- 1483, 2006 WL 1096683, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2006) (findi ng that district court did not abuse its discretion when awarding Realtime costs when Realtime was considered necessary for the deposition). Other courts have ruled that Realtime is never recoverable. See , e.g. , Colon v. Fashion Inst. of Tech. (State Uni v. of35 N

.Y. ) , No. 12

- cv - 7405 HB, 2014 WL 1979875, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2014) (“RealTime transcription . . . are not taxable”)

. But b eyond mere assertions, Defendants have not provided any evidence in support of why Realtime may have been necessary in th e context of this case

. See, e.g. , Salem Fin., Inc. v. United States , 134 Fed. Cl. 544, 550 (2017) (declining to award Realtime costs absent a showing of necessity) ; Allison v. Smoot Enter s. Inc. , No. 2:17

- cv - 01598

- SU, 2020 WL 68300, at *2 (D. Or. Jan. 7, 2020) ( same )

. Defendants have also not provided any reason why Realtime may have been necessary for some depositions while not others. See Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 2, 3, 5, 17, 19, 25. Absent a showing of necessity, the Court declines to ta x the Realtime costs incurred by Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants ’ Bill of Costs is reduced by $ 4,909.20. See id. at 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21

– 24, 26, 27

. b. Costs for Rough ASCII and Expedited Transcription Defendants seek to recover $5,659.50 for costs incurred in purchas ing Rough ASCII transcripts

. Defs.’ Reply Supp. Bill of Costs at 6. Plaintiffs object on the grounds that ASCII , or “rough” deposition transcripts, are not taxable costs. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 7. Thi s District has expressed caution in awarding “rough” deposition costs, and this Court is similarly disinclined to tax those costs absent a showing of necessity. See OAO Alfa Bank v. Ctr. for Pub. Integrity , No. 00

- cv - 2208, 2006 WL 1313309, at *4 (D.D.C. M ay 12, 2006) (“The parties do not address whether court reporter fees for features requested for the convenience of counsel

minuscript, ASCII copies, indices, and diskettes, for example

- are recoverable. There is a broad consensus that they are not.”) ; s ee also In re Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp. Corp. I , No. 02

- 02250, 2012 WL 1414841, at *3 (Bankr. D.D.C. Apr. 23, 2012) (“[T]he cost of obtaining a rough draft transcript of a deposition as a form of expedited transcript ordinarily ought to be disallowed”). Plaint iffs point out, and the Court cannot find evidence to the contrary, that none of the “rough”36 deposition transcripts were ever cited in the record , further suggesting that the transcripts were not a necessity. Additionally , Defendants provide no explanatio n for why “rough” transcripts may have been necessary for many, but not all, of the deponents. See, e.g. , Defs.’ Bill of Costs
Ex. B at 25 (deposition where Defendants did not order “rough” transcript)

. Accordingly, the
Court declines to tax the costs Defendants incurred with “rough” deposition transcripts and will reduce the Bill of Costs by a further $5,659.50. Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 2

– 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21

– 24, 26, 27

. Defendants also seek $5,099.65 to cover the costs of expedited deposition transcripts. 8 The D.C. Circuit has explained that the cost of expedited deposition transcripts is taxable only when expedited proce ssing was “necessarily obtained [] for use in the case.” Sun Ship, Inc. v. Lehman , 655 F.2d 1311, 1318 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2)). Expedited processing may be necessarily obtained if there are discovery disputes or dispositive motions deadl ines. See United States v. Halliburton Co. , 954 F.3d 307, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ( affirming district court’s holding that expedited transcript costs were justified by pending motion to compel, dispositive motions deadline , and other discovery disputes ). Defendan ts contend here that expedited transcripts were necessary due to the compressed deposition schedule and motion deadlines

. Defs.’ Reply Supp. Bill of Costs at 6

– 7

. As support, t hey point out that Defendants filed their motion regarding ONE DC discovery abuses on September 28, 2019, less than ten days after the depos ition of ONE DC ’s 30(b)(6) witness and less than a week after the depos ition of a ONE DC employee involved in the spoliation. See Defs.’ Mot. Sanctions, ECF No. 94

- 3 ;

8 This was calculated by reviewing the deposition transcript invoices attached to Defendants Bill of Costs. Defs.’ B ill of Costs Ex. B at 2

– 27. For expedited invoices that did not list a line item expedition fee

— i.e. id. at 9

– 14, 17, 18

— the Court multiplied the number of pages by the reporter’s standard rate for expediting

.37 Defs.’ Reply Supp. Bill of Costs at 7. But Defendants do not explain why they were compelled to file that motion so quickly. See McGovern v. George Washington Univ. , 326 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D.D.C. 2018) (declining to tax expedited transcripts beca use defendants “provided no explanation for why expedited processing was necessary”). Additionally, Defendants did not expedite the deposition transcript of Yasmina Mrabet, the individual at the center of the spoliation dispute , which cuts against their a rgument that an expedited transcript was required to adequately litigate the issue. Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 6. As to the remaining transcripts (unrelated to the spoliation issue), the Court is likewise not convinced that expedition fees are

recovera ble

. Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 3, 4, 9

– 14, 17, 18. While there were indeed pressing motion deadlines, Defendants have not demonstrated that the Court considered these dates immovable. See , e.g. , U.S. ex rel. Long v. GSDMIdea City, L.L.C. , 807 F.3d 125, 132 (5th Cir. 2015) (declining to award expedition fees when prevailing party could have requested an extension on a motion deadline or where the timing was not particularly crucial). The Court granted numerous filing extensions throughout th is litigation and granted several unopposed motions to modify the schedule

. 9 Absent evidence that the Court was unwilling or unable to grant an extension, D efendants have not demonstrated that the expedit ion fees were necessary

. Furthermore, Defendant s ’ claims of necessity are undercut by the seemingly random nature of which transcripts were expedited. See Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 6

– 8, 15, 16, 19

– 27 (transcripts that were not expedited). For example, the Court is unsure why one deposition taken

on October 2, 2018 would have necessit ate d expedition while another taken on the same day did

9 See Minute Orders either granting a party’s motion for an extension of time or granting a motion to modify the schedule issued on September 2, 2016, September 24, 2016, February 1, 2017, August 9, 2017, February 22, 2018, October 12, 2018, October 26, 2018, December 3, 2018, January 7, 2019, February 22, 2019, September 24, 2019, October 25, 2019, and April 22, 2020.38 not. Compare id. at 6 with id. at 11. Ultimately, then, the Court acknowledges that the parties engaged in a vigorous deposition and litigation schedule, but concludes Defendants have not adequately justified the taxing of these particular costs. Accordingly, Defendants may not recover the $ 5,099.65 in costs incurred in expediting transcripts

.

c. Costs for Deposition Exhibits Are Recoverable Plain tiffs allege that Defendants improperly includ ed $1,216.15 in costs associated with the court reporter providing copies of deposition exhibits. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 10. The Court will subtract the exhibit costs associated with the depositi on of Borum and Moore and determines that $1,140.20 is the recalculated amount in dispute. 10 However, exhibits used during a deposition are necessarily part of the transcript and are recoverable. See Holway , 522 F. Supp. 2d at 19 ( holding that e xhibits attached to a deposition are essential to the trans cript and therefore taxable as part of the cost of the depositi on) ; OAO Alfa Bank , 2006 WL 1313309, at *4 (“[T]he costs of exhibits attached to the deposition are recoverable because they are essential to the deposition transcript.”)

. Defendants are therefore awarded $ 1,140.20 in costs associated with the court reporte r providing copies of deposition exhibits. 11
d. LEF Formatting Costs Are Not Recoverable Defendants have included $950 in LiveNote Evidence For mat (“LEF”) costs. 12 Plaintiffs claim that LEF costs are not authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and are therefore not taxable.

10 The invoices for Borum and Moore’s depositions indicate $63.70 and $12.25 in exhibit costs, respectively. Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 3

– 4. 11 The Court calculated the amount by summing the exhibit fee line items from the deposition transcript invoices Defendants att ached to their Bill of Costs. See Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 2

– 27. 12 LEF is a file format enabling transcripts with the related exhibits to be scanned and hyperlinked to the text and LEF files may also contain synchronized video of the depositions. S

ee, e.g. , Spectrum Reporting LLC, What is...LiveNote Evidence Format , https://www.spectrumreporting.com/whatis_LEF3.html . The Court similarly calculated the LEF39 Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 12. The Court acknowledges that LEF may be useful in some circumstances , but it cannot deter mine that LEF was necessary here

. Courts that have considered the issue have generally declined to award LEF costs. See , e.g. , Bommarito v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins.
Co. , No. 2:15

- CV

- 1187 WBS DB, 2018 WL 4657243, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2018) ( d eclining to award LEF costs as LEF was “provided for the convenience of . . . the attorneys without an explanation of their necessity”) ; Supernus Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm., Inc. , No. CV
15

- 369, 2018 WL 2175765, at *6 (D.N.J. May 11, 2018) (finding LEF cos ts are not recoverable as they are “additional services”); United States ex rel. King v. Solvay S.A. , No. CV H

- 06

- 2662, 2016 WL 3523873, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 28, 2016), aff ’ d sub nom. United States ex rel King v. Solvay Pharm

. , Inc. , 871 F.3d 318 (5th Cir . 2017) ( finding LEF costs not recoverable as they are

“ ancillary fee s that appear to be for convenience only ” ); In re: Whirlpool Corp. , No. 1:08

- WP

65000, 2015 WL 11995255, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2015) ( finding that LEF was unnecessary and “ merely conv enient to counsel ” and therefore not taxable ). While t his C ircuit has not issued any opinion on LEF, because it is merely a feature that can allow exhibits to be hyperlinked within the transcript for the convenience of counsel , this Court deems LEF nontaxable

. Defendants have also neglected to provide any support, let alone even mention, as to why they should be a ble to recover these costs. Defs.’ Bill of Costs ; Defs.’ Reply Supp. Bill of Costs

. Accordingly, the Court will deduct $950 for LEF from Defendants’ Bill of Costs.

e. Shipping and Handling Costs Are Not Recoverable Defendants seek to recover the costs asso ciated with shipping copies of deposition transcripts. Defs.’ Reply Supp. Bill of Costs at 8. Defendants d id not separate out their shipping

amount in dispute by summing the LEF fee line items from the deposition transcript invoices Def endants attached to their Bill of Costs. See Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 2

– 27.40 costs from their total claimed costs, but Plaintiffs have calculated this amount to be $575. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 6, 13. T his Court is unable to verify that amount . Plaintiffs provide a breakdown of their calculation , see Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. F , ECF No.
194

- 8, but Plaintiffs have impermissibly conflated processing fees with shipping fees. See, e.g. , Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 21 (listing separate invoice charges for “Handling, Processing & Archiving” and “Shipping/Delivery”). The Court will therefore deduct the processing costs that Plainti ffs have rolled into their shipping fee summation. The transcription invoices provided by Defendants indicate that the shipping fees total $225. Defs.’ Bill of Costs Ex. B at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24. Accordin gly, the Court determines that shipping costs in the instant dispute are $225. Defendants ’ assertion that delivery costs are recoverable is in correct. See Bell v. Gonzales , No. 03

- cv - 163, 2006 WL 6000485, at *2 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2006) (“[C]osts associated with delivery, shipping, and handling are not recoverable because they are considered part of the cost of operating a business.”); see also Holway , 522 F. Supp. 2d at 19 (declining to tax deposition transcript delivery costs because “[a]dministrative fees, like delivery costs, are

. . . considered ordinary business expenses that cannot be recovered as costs” (internal quotations marks omitted)) ; OAO Alfa Bank , 2006 WL 1313309, at *4 (“[C]osts associated with delivery, shipping, and handling are not re coverable because they are considered part of the cost of operating a law firm.”)

. Defendants do not provide sufficient explanation or reasoning to support their assertion that these costs are recoverable. Defs.’ Reply Supp. Bill of Costs at 8

. Accordin gly, Defendants’ B ill of C osts will be reduced by $225 for shipping and handling fees

. To summarize, the following will be deducted from Defendants ’ claimed deposition
costs : (a) $4,909.20 for Realtime; (b) $5,659.50 for “rough” ASCII transcripts and $5,099.65 in41 expedition fees; ( c ) $75.95 in exhibit costs associated with the depositions of Borum and Moore ; (d) $950 in LEF; and (e) $225 in shipping and handling. Defendants ’ reque st of $33,744.50 for the costs for transcripts of depositions used in filings in this case is therefore reduced by $1 6 , 919.30

. The Court will further subtract $504 and $626.50 for the deposition s of Borum and
Moore respectively

. See n. 6 , supra . Accordingly, Defendants are awarded $ 15,694.70 in deposition costs

. 4. Costs for Hearing Transcripts Are Recoverable Defendants also claim $163.40 in transcript costs for the January 9, 2019 status conference and the February 22, 2019 telephonic status confer ence
. Defs.’ Bill of Costs ¶ 6. Plaintiffs contend that costs for these hearing transcripts are not recoverable. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 14. This Circuit has held that hearing transcript costs may be recoverable if the transcripts were nece ssarily obtained for use in the case

. Lehman , 655 F.2d at 1318 (“The costs of the hearing transcripts . . . appear to us plainly authorized by 28 U.S.C. s 1920(2) & (4).”) ; see also Osseiran v. Int ’ l Fin. Corp. , 68 F. Supp. 3d 152, 159 (D.D.C. 2014) ( holding the “hearing transcripts at issue were ‘necessarily obtained for use in the case,’ and thus, the costs were properly claimed”)

. In addition, Local Rule 54.1(d)(7) directs the Clerk to tax the cost “of the original and one copy of the reporter ’ s tr anscript of a hearing or trial if the transcript: ( i ) is alleged by the prevailing party to have been necessary for the determination of an appeal within the meaning of Fed. R. App. P. 39(e) , or (ii) was required by the court to be transcribed.” D.D.C. Ci v. R. 54.1(d)(7).
For present purposes, though, neither subdivision of Local Rule 54.1(d)(7) appear s to apply. The parties have stipulated to not appeal the Court’s Order granting summary judgment for Defendants , meaning that the Defendants, at least at this point, cannot reasonably argue the42 preparation of a transcript is necessary for an appeal

. Defs.’ Notice of Withdrawal ¶ 1 , ECF No.
193. Additionally, this Court did not require any hearing to be transcribed. Defendants contend , however , that the transcripts were necessarily obtained for use in the case as demonstrated by their filings. Defs.’ Reply Supp. Bill of Costs at 8

– 9 . Defendants specifically cited the two status conference transcript s in their April 4, 2019 filing

. Defs.’ Mot. Decertify Class at 2, 4, 11, 37, 39, 41 , ECF No. 123

- 1 . Defendants also included the transcripts as exhibits in a separately filed declaration

. Decl. John J. Byron, ECF No. 124 ¶¶ 4, 5. The Court finds there is sufficient evidence that the transcripts w ere necessarily obtained for Defendants’ case. See United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co. , No. 05

- cv - 1276, 2018 WL 6411342, at *4 (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2018), aff ’ d in part, rev ’ d in part on other grounds and remanded sub nom. United States v. Halliburt on Co. , 954 F.3d 307 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (awarding costs for two status hearing transcripts

w hen prevailing party justified their necessity) ; Youssef , 762 F. Supp. 2d at 88 (denying costs when party failed to establish that it was necessary to use the transcr ipts ) ; Craig v. Robinson , 197
F. Supp. 3d 268, 289 (D.D.C. 2016) (denying costs for hearing transcripts when party made no argument about the “necessity or required use of these transcripts”). Accordingly, the Court finds that the $163.40 Defendants spent on hearing transcripts is a taxable cost.
5. Costs for Copying Are Recoverable Defendants request $300 for cop ying costs, the maximum amount that Defendants may recover under Local Rule 54.1(d)(9). Defs.’ Bill of Costs ¶ 7. Plaintiffs do not dispute this
amount. Pls.’ Opp’n Defs.’ Bill of Costs at 15 n.18. Accordingly, D efendants are awarded $300 in copying co sts. * * *43 In conclusion , regarding Defendants’ Bill of Costs , the Court finds that (1) because any costs imposed on the named individuals would likely be financially ruinous , they are exempted from payment and (2) the $400 Defendants spent on p ro h ac vice f ees are not recoverable

. However, Defendants may recover (1) $ 15,694.70 in deposition fees , (2) $163.40 in hearing transcript costs , and (3) $300 in copying costs. Accordingly, Defendants ’ Bill of Costs is recalculated for a total of $ 16,158.10.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART ; Plaintiffs’ motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses is DENIED ; and Defendants’ Bill of Costs is GRANTED IN P ART AND
DENIED IN PART

. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separate ly and contemporaneously issued.

Dated: September 4, 2020 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge