[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 59 2; 12 -1 15 73 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cv -0 03 99 -PAM- TEM DONALD P. WATSON, CHRIS TINE H. WATSON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us LAKE COUNT Y, a p ol it ic al subd iv is io n o f th e St at e o f Fl or id a, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 5, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 1 of 16PER CURI AM:

Don al d a ndCh ris ti ne W at so n (c ol le ct iv el y , “ th e Watso ns ”) ap pe al pr o s e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia ls of t he ir F ed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b ) (“ Ru le 60 (b )”) m ot io ns for rel ie f fro m

th e jud gm en t an d d en ia l i n p artof t he ir m ot io n fo r rev ie w of t he co st s award edto Lake Co un ty, Fl or id a, in th e Watso ns ’ 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c iv il rig ht s act io n. Fo r th e rea so ns setforthbe lo w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd ers de nyin g t he W at so ns ’ Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io ns an d a ffi rm in pa rt a ndva cat e inpa rt t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g i n p artth e Watso ns ’ m ot io n fo r rev ie w of c os ts . 1 I. In20 10 , th e Watso ns fil edanam en de d c om pl ai ntag ai ns t Lak e Co un ty, al le gi ng th atitha d v io la te d t he ir e qu al -p ro te ct io n a ndsubs ta nt iv e-due -p ro ces s rig ht s und er the U.S. Con st itut io n wh enitcit edth em fora vi ol at io n o f it s Lan d Dev el op m en t Re gu la ti on s (“ LDR”) af te r th e Watso ns im

po rte d d irton to th ei r va can t s ub di vi si on lo t wi th ou t p rio r au th or iz at io n. Th e am en de d c om pl ai ntst at ed th at , du rin g the co ur se of e nf or cem en t p ro ceed in gs reg ard in g t he vi ol at io n, t he W at so ns ha d a rg ue d t ha t an ex em pt io n fr om

th e au th or iz at io n re qu ire m en t ap pl ie d to th ei r lo t b ecau se itwas d ev ot edto dwel li ng pu rp os es . Lake C ou nty , ho wev er, We note that L ake County filed supplemental a

uthority , pursuant to Fe d.R.App.P. 28(j). 1 Be cause we f

ind the authority

not releva

nt to the issues presente d on appea l, we do not consider it. 2

Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 2 of 16di sa gr eedas t o the ap pl ic ab il it y of t he ex em

pt io n, an d a rg ue d t ha t the W at so ns ’ lo t was no t d ev ot edto dwel li ng pu rp os es . A spe ci al m as te r ag reedwith Lak e Co un ty an d o rd eredth e Watso ns to rem ov e th e d irt . The di stric t co urt awa rd edsu m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Lake Co un ty. W it h re sp ectto th e Watso ns ’ equa l-p ro te ct io n c la im , th e co urt s ta te d t ha t the y ha d al le ge d t ha t Lak e Co un ty w as un equa ll y adm in is te rin g afaci al ly neu tra l s ta tu te . The co urt fo un d t ha t the W at so ns ha d fa il edto sh ow t ha t the y were treat ed di ffer en tl y

fro m si m il arl y -s itua te d i nd iv idua ls , as t he y ha d n otsh ownth atot he r subd iv is io n l otown ers , who Lake Co un ty hadno t ci te d fo r th e rel ev an t v io la ti on an d wh o h adals o i m

po rte d d irton to th ei r pr op erty , di d n otfir stob ta in au th or iz at io n p rio r to th ei r im po rta ti on of d irt . Fol lo win g the jud gm en t, the W at so ns fil eda Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m th e jud gm en t, an d t he di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n. Th e Watso ns ap pe al edth e co urt’s ru li ng s, an d we affi rm edforth e rea so ns setforth in th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd ers . The W at so ns fil eda se co ndRu le 60 (b ) m ot io n, an d a rg ue d t ha t Lak e Co un ty hadm is rep res en te d fa ct s i n i ts fil in gs to th e d is tri ctco urt tha t caus edth e co urt t o m is ap pr eh en d fa ct s m at eri al to th ei r cl ai m s. In ord er t o d em on strat e th at Lak e Co un ty hadm ad e m is rep res en ta ti on s, the W at so ns arg ue d t ha t l an gu ag e in th e LDR de m on strat edth atLake Co un ty’ s i nt erp ret at io n o f va rio us term s as us ed 3 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 3 of 16in th e LDR were i nc orrectan d t ha t Lak e Co un ty hadm is readpro vi si on s o f th e

LDR, to th e ex cl us io n o f ot he rs . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he W at so ns ’ m ot io n be cau se th ey

ha d fa il edto sh ow tha t Lak e Co un ty actedwith a n i nt en t t o d ecei ve an d t ha t i ts co nduc t p rev en te d the m fro m ful ly andfai rly pres en ti ng th ei r cas e. The W at so ns fil eda th irdRu le 60 (b ) m ot io n andrai se d s ev eral ot he r ob jecti on s t o t he di st ric t co urt’s p rev io us fin di ng s. Th e Watso ns ha d n otrai se d an y of t he se ob

jecti on s i n t he ir i ni ti al bri ef o n d ire ctap pe al to th is Co urt o f th e or de rs th ey

ch al le ng ed , with the ex cep ti on of t he ir a rg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt ha d m is ch arac te riz edth ei r equa l-p ro te ct io n c la im as asel ect iv e-en fo rcem en t cl ai m . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d the W at so ns ’ m ot io n b ecau se itha d a lre ady reject edth e Watso ns ’ arg um en ts on two pre vi ou s o ccas io ns an d wo ul d n otad dr es s th em ag ai n. Fo ll owi ng th e co urt’s o rd er, Lak e Co un ty file d abi ll of c os ts th atto ta le d $1 1,6 57 .85 . Inc lu de d i n t he to ta l wer e th e co st s o f th e tr an sc rip ts of t he de po si ti on s o f se ve ral witne ss es , as wel l as th e co stof s hi pp in g tho se trans cri pt s. Lak e Co un ty also so ug htto reco ve r th e co st s o f a t el ep ho ne -co nf eren ce ca ll du rin g whi chLake Co un ty too k awitne ss ’s dep os it io n a ndth e st en og rap hi c rec or di ng of a st at e-co urt h eari ng be fo re J ud ge T. Mich ael Jo hn so n. Al so in cl ud edin th e to ta l was $2 ,86 6.4 7 i n c os ts , whi ch acco rd in g t o a n i te m iz edli st , con si st edof t he co st s 4 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 4 of 16of

th e fo ll owi ng it em s: (1) 3 s et s o f at ta ch m en ts to Lake Co un ty’ s m ot io n t o di sm is s an d m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t; (2) 10 0 p ag es of “ B & W” pri nt in g; (3 ) di sc ov ery do cu m en ts ; (4 ) 2 s et s o f de po si ti on tra ns cri pt s fo r tr ia l; an d (5 ) do cu m en ts an d p ho to gr ap hs to be us edat t ria l. Lak e Co un ty’ s s up po rti ng do cu m en ta ti on sh owe d tha t i t i nc lu de d i n i ts co pyin g c os ts th e co st s o f pu rch as in g bi nd ers , tab s, an d “ te ch ni cal lab or ,” whi ch co ns is te d o f th e ti m e sp en t cu tt in g ex hi bi ts . The cl erkof t he co urt the n t ax edth e to ta l co st s Lak e Co un ty requ es te d to th e Watso ns . The W at so ns fil eda m ot io n s eek in g re vi ew of th e cl erk ’s bi ll of c os ts an d ob jecte d t o 3 8 s pe ci fic co st s, i nc lu di ng th e co st s o f dupl ic at e co pi es of d ep os it io ns an d o f th e v id eo gr ap hi c an d s te no gr ap hi c rec or di ng of t he ir o wn d ep os it io ns . The di st ric t co urt g ran te d t he W at so ns ’ ob jecti on to an y

it em to whi ch itco ul d n ot faci al ly con cl ud e th atth e it em was n eces sa ril y

ob ta in edforus e in th e cas e. Howev er, the co urt o ve rru le d a ll of t he W at so ns ’ rem ai ni ng ob jecti on s, fi nd in g th atth ey were fa ci al ly w it ho utm eri t. Itfou ndth at , alt ho ug h t he W at so ns co nt en de d t ha t dup li cat e co pi es were n ottax ab le , th ere wer e so m e ex am pl es wher e dupl ic at e co pi es were n eces sa ry , anditwou ldno t i ss ue a bl an ke t ex cl us io n a s t o th em . Furt he r, th e co st s o f th e Watso ns ’ own de po si ti on s, i nc lu di ng vi de o de po si ti on s, were “ al m os t s el f-ev id en tl y ne ces sa ril y

ob ta in edforus e in th e cas e.” 5 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 5 of 16The co urt o rd eredth atth e b il l o f co st s b e reduc edto a to ta l o f $8 ,92 5.0 5. II. On ap pe al , th e Watso ns arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt, i n d en y in g t he ir s eco nd Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n, erredin requi rin g t he m to sh ow t ha t Lak e Co un ty’ s m is rep res en ta ti on s wer e m ad e wit h a n “ in te ntto de cei ve ” an d i n re qu iri ng th em to sh ow t ha t the m is rep res en ta ti on s p rev en te d t he m fro m ful ly andfai rly pres en ti ng th ei r cas e. They ass ertth atth e d is tri ctco urt n ev er ad dr es se d t he ir e qu al pr ot ect io n c la im

be cau se itco ns tru editas asel ect iv e-en fo rcem en t cl ai m , rathe r th ana cl ai m

ba se d o n the ir a ll eg at io n t ha t Lak e Co un ty lack eda rat io na l b as is for di ffer en ti al ly clas si fy in g t he ir p ro pe rty. T he W at so ns co nt en d t ha t the ir c la im s were m eri to rio us , as t he di st ric t co urt h adde ni edLake Co un ty’ s o th er m ot io ns for jud gm en t i n i ts fav or . W ith re sp ectto th ei r th irdRu le 60 (b ) m ot io n, t he W at so ns arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin no t ad dr es si ng th ei r ob jecti on s t ha t wer e un rel at edto Lake Co un ty’ s m is rep res en ta ti on s. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m th e jud gm en t fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Freder ic k v. Ki rb y Ta nk sh ip s, In c. , 20 5 F .3d 12 77 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Pro se pl ead in gs are h el d t o ales s s tri ng en t s ta nd ard th anth os e th atare draft edby atto rn ey s an d a re l ib eral ly con st ru ed . Box er X v. Har ris , 43 7 F .3d11 07 , 11 10 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). 6 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 6 of 16Ourrev ie w of aRu le 60 (b ) m ot io n i s n arro w andde fere nt ia l an d d oe s n ot

in vo lv e rev ie w of t he un de rlyin g ju dg m en t. Rice v. Ford Mo to r C o. , 88 F.3d91 4, 91 9- 20 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). The m ov in g p arty m us t s ho w gro un ds in hi s m ot io n s o co m pe ll in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt was requi redto gra ntth e Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n. Id. at91 9. A party doe s n otst at e g ro un ds forrel ie f un de r Ru le 60 (b ) by m erel y sh owi ng m is ta ke s o f la w th atco ul d h av e b een rai se d o n d ire ctap pe al . Se e id. Thu s, al th ou gh a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n i s t o b e g iv ena li be ral an d re m ed ia l co ns tru ct io n, i t ca nn otbe us edas asubs ti tu te fora pr op er an d t im el y ap pe al of t he di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t. Se e Ca va li er e v. All st at e In s. Co . , 99 6 F .2d11 11 , 11 15 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) . Pu rs uantto Ru le 60 (b ), a co urt m ay rel ie ve a pa rty from

a fi na l ju dg m en t fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s: (1) m is take , in adve rte nc e su rp ris e, orex cu sabl e n eg le ct ; (2 ) ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce; (3) frau d, m is rep res en ta ti on , or m is co nduc t b y an op po si ng pa rty; (4 ) a v oi d ju dg m en t; (5) a jud gm en t tha t h as be ensat is fie d, rel eas ed , or d is ch arg ed ; o r (6 ) an y ot he r rea so n t ha t ju st ifi es rel ie f. Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b ). To o bt ai n re li ef u nd er Ru le 60 (b )(3 ), th e m ov in g p arty m us t p ro ve by clear an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th atth e ad ve rs e p arty ob ta in edth e v erd ic t thr ou gh frau d, m is rep res en ta ti on s, o r ot he r m is co nduc t. Freder ic k, 20 5 F .3dat 1 28 7. Th e m ov in g p arty

m us t al so de m on st rat e th atth e al le ge d c on du ctpre ve nt edth em fro m 7 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 7 of 16fu ll y

pre se nt in g h is or h er ca se . Id. Und er the law- of

-th e-ca se do ctrin e, th e fi nd in gs of f actan d c on cl us io ns of la w by ou r Co urt ar e g en eral ly bin di ng in all subs eque ntpro ceed in gs in th e tr ia l co urt o r a l at er ap pe al . Se e S ch ia vo ex r el . Sch in dl er

v. Sc hi av o , 40 3 F .3d12 89 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Thi s d oc tri ne pre cl ud es co urts fro m rev is it in g a n i ss ue de ci de d e xp li ci tl y

or b y ne ces sa ry

im pl ic at io n i n t he same case in a pr io r ap pe al . Id. The l aw-o f-the -cas e d oc tri ne , ho wev er, d oe s n otpre cl ud e u s fr om rev is it in g is su es when (1) ne w andsubs ta nt ia ll y di ffer en t ev id en ce em erg es at asubs eque nt tri al ; (2 ) co nt ro ll in g aut ho rit y ha s b een de ci de d t ha t i s co nt rary to o urpre vi ou s de ci si on ; o r (3 ) th e ear li er ru li ng was c le arl y erro ne ou s an d wo ul d wo rka m an ife st in jus ti ce i f im

pl em en te d. Id. at12 92 . W it h re sp ectto th e Watso ns ’ se co ndRu le 60 (b ) m ot io n, t he y so ug htrel ie f fro m th e jud gm en t b as edon m is rep res en ta ti on s Lak e Co un ty m ad e in fil in gs with th e d is tri ctco urt. The W at so ns ha ve no t p ro vi de d a ny reaso n fo r why the y were un ab le to po in t o utth es e al le ge d m is rep res en ta ti on s t o t he co urt b efo re i t ru le d o n th ei r su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Fu rth er, al l o f th e al le ge d m is rep res en ta ti on s id en ti fie d i n t he W at so ns ’ m ot io n app ear t o turn o n h ow o ne in te rp ret s t he LDR, as op po se d t o a ctua l m is co nduc t. Thu s, the co urt p ro pe rly den ie d t he ir m ot io n, as th e Watso ns have no t s ho wn tha t the y were p rev en te d fr om

ful ly andfai rly 8 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 8 of 16pr es en ti ng th ei r cas es an d h av e n otde m on st rat edth atLake Co un ty eng ag edin th e

type o f m is co nduc t tha t ju st ifi es Ru le 60 (b )(3 ) rel ie f. Fred er ic k, 20 5 F .3dat 1 28 7. The W at so ns ass ertth atth e d is tri ctco urt m is ch arac te riz edth ei r equa lpr ot ect io n c la im

as asel ect iv e-en fo rcem en t cl ai m an d, thu s, d idno t d eci de th ei r actua l cl ai m

reg ard in g wh ethe r Lak e Co un ty lack eda rat io na l b as is for di ffer en ti al ly clas si fy in g t he ir p ro pe rty. H owe ve r, th e Watso ns rai se d t hi s arg um en t o n d ire ctap pe al , as t he y ass ert edin th ei r in it ia l ap pe ll at e b rie f th atth e di st ric t co urt u nd ers to odth ei r cl ai m as Lak e Co un ty sele ct iv el y cit in g t he W at so ns fo r vi ol at in g § 14 .00 .02 , bu t tha t the ir a ctua l cl ai m was t ha t the y

were treat ed di ffer en ti al ly becau se Lake Co un ty arbi traril y cla ss ifi edth ei r lo t as lan d n ot de vo te d t o d well in g u se s. We affirm edth e d is tri ctco urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t or de r, ne ces sa ril y

de ci di ng th atth is arg um en t was witho utm eri t. Thu s, thi s arg um en t i s b arre d u nd er the law- of -th e-ca se do ctrin e u nl es s an ex cep ti on ap pl ie s. Sc hi av o , 40 3 F .3dat 1 29 1- 92 . The fi rs t two ex cep ti on s t o t he do ctrin e are in ap pl ic ab le . Furt he r, th e ear li er ru li ng was n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. Bo tha

“ se le ct iv e-en fo rcem en t” cla im an d a“ di ffer en ti al -cl as si fic at io n” cla im ess en ti al ly al le ge th atLake Co un ty app li edth e LDR to th e Watso ns di ffer en tl y th anitap pl ie d th e LDR to ot he r subd iv is io n l otown ers . Se e E &T Real tyv. Stri ckl an d , 83 0 F .2d 11 07 , 11 12 -1 4 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 7) (de sc rib in g t he di ffer en t ty pe s o f equa l-p ro te ct io n 9 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 9 of 16cl ai m s) . Reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e Watso ns ha d t o s ho w th atLake Co un ty

pu rp os efu ll y

di sc riminat edag ai ns t the m or t ha t i ts act io ns lac ke d arat io na l b as is to st at e a cl ai m

forrel ie f, th ey

als o h adto sh ow t ha t the y were treat eddi ffer en tl y th ansi m il arl y -s itua te d s ub di vi si on lo t o wne rs , whi ch , as s etforth in th e d is tri ct co urt’s o rd er, the y

fai le d t o d o. Se e Ca mpb el l v. Ra in bo w Ci ty , 43 4 F .3d13 06 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Nex t, the W at so ns ass ertth atth e d is tri ctco urt o nl y ad dr es se d 1 of t he 28 m is ta ke s i nc lu de d i n t he ir t hi rdm ot io n. Al l o f th e al le ge d m is take s re la te to th e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs in it s s umm ary jud gm en t o rd er an d i ts ord er d en y in g t he ir fir stRu le 60 (b ) m ot io n. Th e Watso ns di d n otrai se th es e al le ge d e rro rs on di rect ap pe al of t he se ord ers an d h av e n otpro vi de d areas onforwhy th ey were u nabl e to do so . Becau se a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n c an no t b e u se d a s a s ub st itut e fo r a d ire ct ap pe al , we wil l n otad dr es s t he se all eg ederro rs inth e co urt’s s umm ary-j ud gm en t or de r no w. Fin al ly, al th ou gh th e Watso ns arg ue th atth e co urt’s fi nd in g, t ha t the ir cl ai m s wer e witho utm eri t, ca nn otbe reco nc il edwith t he co urt’s d eci si on to de ny Lak e Co un ty’ s o th er m ot io ns forjud gm en t, the W at so ns ig no re tha t the co urt d id no t d en y th os e m ot io ns on th e m eri ts , bu t ra th er o nl y de ni edth em

as m oo t i n l ig ht of th e fac t tha t the W at so ns ha d fi le d asec on d a m en de d c om pl ai nt . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he W at so ns ’ se co ndan d 10 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 10 of 16th irdRu le 60 (b ) m ot io ns . III.

The W at so ns arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt l ack edst atut ory auth or it y un de r 28 U.S.C. §1 92 0 t o a wardth e fo ll owi ng co st s t o Lak e Co un ty: (1) co st s as so ci at ed wit h aco nf

eren ce ca ll ; (2 ) po st ag e an d m ai li ng co st s; (3) co st s as so ci at edwith tabs , bi nd ers , andtec hn ic al lab or ; an d (4 ) a s ta te -co urt h eari ng tra ns cri ptbe fo re Ju dg e Jo hn so n. Th e Watso ns furth er arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t d et erm in e whe th er the fol lo win g i te m s wer e n eces sa ril y ob ta in edforus e in th e cas e, as requi redby 28 U.S.C. § 19 20 : (1 ) dupl ic at e co pi es of d ep os it io ns ; (2 ) Ch ris ti ne W at so n’s i ni ti al de po si ti on tra ns cri pt ; (3 ) th e Watso ns ’ vi de ot ap e d ep os it io ns ; (4 ) co pi es of l it ig at io n d oc um en ts ; an d (5 ) th e Ju dg e Jo hn so n t ran sc rip t. A di st ric t co urt’s awar d o f co st s i s re vi ewedforab us e o f di sc ret io n. Arca di an Fert il iz er

, L.P. v. MPW

Indus . Ser vs ., Inc . , 24 9 F .3d12 93 , 12 95 (11 th Ci r. 20 01 ). Fed .R.Ci v.P . 54 (d )(1 ) al lo ws p rev ai li ng parti es to rece iv e co st s o th er th anatt orne y s’ fees . Fed .R.Ci v.P . 54 (d )(1 ). Ther e is a pr es um pt io n i n fa vo r of award in g c os ts . Arca di an Fert il iz er , L.P. , 24 9 F .3dat 1 29 6. In award in g c os ts , a di st ric t co urt i s b ou ndby the li m it at io ns setforth in 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 0. Id. A jud ge or c le rkof any cou rt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s m ay tax as c os ts th e fo ll owi ng : (1 ) fee s o f th e cl erkan d m ars ha l; (2) fees for“pr in te d o r el ect ro ni cal ly recor de d 11 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 11 of 16tra ns cri pt s n eces sa ril y ob ta in edforus e in th e cas e; ” (3 ) fee s re la te d t o p rin ti ng an d wit ne ss es ; (4 ) fee s fo r “ ex em pl ifi cat io n a ndth e co st s o f m ak in g c op ie s o f an y m at eri al s wh ere the co pi es are n eces sa ril y ob ta in edforus e in th e cas e; ” (5 ) do ck et fees ; an d (6 ) co m

pe ns at io n o f co urt ap po in te d e xp ert s an d fe es rel at edto in te rp ret at io n s erv ic es . 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 0( 1) -(6 ). Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r th e co st s o f rec or di ng a de po si ti onm ay be tax ed un de r § 1 92 0, a d is tri ctco urt m us t d eci de th e fac tu al qu es ti on of wh ethe r th e de po si ti on was n eces sa ril y ob ta in edforus e in a cas e. See EEOC v. W & O, Inc . , 21 3 F .3d60 0, 6 20 -2 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . W he re the de po si ti onco st s wer e in cu rred fo r th e p rev ai li ng pa rti es ’ co nv en ie nc e, su ch as t o a idin th or ou gh pre pa rat io n o r fo r th e p ur

po se s o f in ve st ig at io n o nl y , th e co st s ar e n otreco ve rab le . Id. at 6 20 . Alt ho ug h u se of ade po si ti on at t ria l o r in a su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n t en ds to sh ow t ha t the de po si ti on was n eces sa ril y ob ta in edforus e in a cas e, su cha sh owi ng is no t n eces sa ry to be tax ab le . Id. at62 1. Thu s, ev enwher e a d ep os it io n is no t u lt im at el y

us edas p artof apre va il in g p arty ’s cas e, we ha ve he ldth atth e co st s o f th e d ep os it io n a re t ax ab le un de r § 1 92 0 wh ere n o e vi de nc e sh ows th atth e de po si ti on was u nr el at edto anis su e in th e cas e atth e ti m e itwas t ak en . Id. at 6 22 . Whe re a p arty

no ti ces a de po si ti on to be reco rd edby both s te no gr ap hi c an d n on st en og rap hi c m ean s, an d n o o bjec ti on is rai se d a t tha t t im e as to th e m etho d o f 12 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 12 of 16reco rd at io n, p ur su an t t o F ed .R.Ci v.P . 26 (c), a c ou rt c anawardth e co stof

co nduc ti ng th e d ep os it io n i n t he m an ne r no ti ced . Se e Mo rr is on v. Reic hh old Ch ems ., Inc . , 97 F.3d46 0, 4 64 -6 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) (ho ld in g t ha t co st s fo r a v id eo de po si ti on are p ro pe rly tax ab le un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 0) . In ev al ua ti ng co py cos ts , a d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d c on si de r whe th er the pre va il in g p arty co ul d h av e

“ reas on ab ly bel ie ve d” th atitwas n eces sa ry to co py the do cu m en ts at i ss ue . W & O, In c. , 21 3 F .3dat 6 23 . Actu al us e o f th e in fo rm at io n c on ta in edinth e d oc um en t co pi edis no t a p rere qu is it e to fin di ng th atitwas n eces sa ry to co py the do cum en t. Id. The W at so ns ass ertth atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n o ve rru li ng th ei r ob jecti onto th e co st s fo r dupl ic at e co pi es of v ari ou s t ran sc rip ts be cau se no ev id en ce d em on strat edth atth e dup li cat es were n eces sa ril y ob ta in edforus e in th e cas e. Howev er, the W at so ns di d n otarg ue th is is su e b efo re the di stric t co urt. Rat he r, th e Watso ns ass ert edth atsu ch co st s fo r dupl ic at e co pi es were n ot reco ve rab le un de r an y

cir cu m st an ce. We hav e p rev io us ly uph el d c op ie s o f de po si ti on tra ns cri pt s as tax ab le un de r § 1 92 0. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. K ol es ar , 31 3 F.2 d 8 35 , 84 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 96 3) (ho ld in g t ha t co st s fo r co pi es of d ep os it io ns are reco ve rab le in so m e cas es ). Thu s, the di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n

13 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 13 of 16refu si ng to gra nta bl an ke t ex em pt io n wi thres pe ctto th e dup li cat e co pi es . 2 Fu rth er, the co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n o ve rru li ng th e Watso ns ’ ob jecti on s t o t he reco rd in gs of t he ir o wn d ep os it io ns in li gh t o f th ei r ro le as pl ai nt iff s i n t he cas e. Lake Co un ty pro pe rly gav e n ot ic e th atitwou ldbe reco rd in g bo th of t he W at so ns ’ de po si ti on s b y st en og rap hi c an d v id eo gr ap hi c m ean s fo r di sc ov ery pu rp os es an d fo r us e attri al . ThatCh ris ti ne W at so n’s d ep os it io n was no t u lt im at el y

us edas p artof Lak e Co un ty’ s d efen se do es no t d em on st rat e th athe r de po si ti on was u nr el at edto anis su e p res en t i n t he cas e atth e ti m e h er d ep os it io n was tak en . Se e W

& O, Inc . , 21 3 F .3dat 6 22 . The di stric t co urt d idab us e it s d is cret io n i n t ax in g c os ts forth e (1 ) te le ph on e-co nf

eren ce fe e; (2) sh ip m en t o f th e d ep os it io ns ; an d (3 ) bi nd ers , tabs , and“ te ch ni cal lab or .” Altho ug h § 19 20 (2 ) st at es th atfees for“pr in te d o r el ect ro ni cal ly recor de d t ran sc rip ts ” are reco ve rab le , th is pro vi si on do es no t ex te nd to tel ep ho ne -co nf

eren ce fe es rel at edto th e ta ki ng of ade po si ti on . Sim il arl y , § 1 92 0 d oe s n otau th or iz e rec ov ery of co st s fo r sh ip m en t o f de po si ti on s o r co st s fo r bi nd ers , tab s, an d t ech ni cal lab or . 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 0; se e Duc kwo rth v . To the extent the Watsons i ntend to raise the ir objection to these duplica tes on the basis 2 that they wer e not nec essarily

obtained for

use in the ca se for

the first time on appe al, we w ill not consider the ir objection. See A lbra v. Advan, I nc. , 490 F.3d 826, 828 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2007) (holdingthat it would not consider a plaintiff’ s pro seargument that was not ra ised in the district court a nd was ra ised for the first time on appea l). 14 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 14 of 16W

hise na nt , 97 F.3d13 93 , 13 99 (11 th Cir .19 96 ) (s ta ti ng th atpo st ag e is no t reco ve rab le un de r § 1 92 0) . The di stric t co urt d idno t ex pr es sl y ad dr es s t he W at so ns ’ arg um en t tha t the co pi es an d J ud ge Jo hn so n t ran sc rip t wer e n otne ces sa ril y ob ta in edforus e in th e cas e. Thi s ar gu m en t ca nn otbe res ol ve d o n i ts face , andth e rec or d d oe s n otass is t us in de te rm in in g wh ethe r th es e co pi es an d t he tra ns cri ptwere n eces sa ril y ob ta in edforus e in th e cas e. Fo r in st an ce, Lak e Co un ty w as award edco st s fo r

“ B & W pri nt in g” an d “ co lo r co pi es ,” bu t d idno t fu rth er ex pl ai n wh atdo cu m en ts were ac tu al ly cop ie d. Se e id. at13 99 (st at in g t ha t g en eral co pyin g i s n ot reco ve rab le un de r § 1 92 0) . Lake C ou nt y als o was award edco st s fo r 3 s et s o f 11 0 pa ge s re la te d t o i ts 11 -p ag e m ot io n t o d is m is s t ha t h adno att ach m en ts an d fo r 3 se ts of i ts att ach m en ts to it s 2 su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io ns th atwere fi le d el ect ro ni cal ly. It p ro vi de d n o e xp lana ti on forth es e co st s. Fi na ll y , alt ho ug h a st at e-co urt tran sc rip t m ay be reco ve rab le un de r § 1 92 0( 2) , Lake Co un ty nev er m en ti on edth e st at e-co urt p ro ceed in g t ha t i t tran sc rib edin it s fi li ng s i n the di st ric t co urt, an d, wi th ou t fu rth er ex pl an at io n b y Lake Co un ty, itis un cl ear wh y th e tra ns cri ptwas n eces sa ry

for us e inth e cas e. Thu s, we re m an d t o t he di st ric t co urt to m ak e fu rth er fi nd in gs as t o wh ethe r th e co pi es an d t he st at e-co urt tran sc rip t were n eces sa ril y

ob ta in edforus e in th e cas e. Se e Mo rr is on , 97 F.3dat 4 65 -6 6 15 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 15 of 16(rem an di ng to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r fu rth er fi nd in gs as t o t he ne ces si ty of co pyin g

co st s wh ere t he reco rddi d n otde m on st rat e why it was ne ces sa ry to co py a vi de o de po si ti on ). Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f th e W at so ns ’ se co ndan d t hi rdRu le 60 (b ) m ot io ns an d the de ni al of the ir m ot io n fo r rev ie w of c os ts tax edwith re sp ectto th e dup li cat e co pi es of d ep os it io n t ran sc rip ts an d t he W at so ns ’ de po si ti on s. We rem an d t o t he di st ric t co urt wi th in st ru ct io ns to va cat e th e ta xa ti on of c os ts forco nf eren ce-c al l fe es , sh ip m en t co st s, b in de rs , tab s, an d t ech ni cal lab or , andto de te rm in e whe th er i t was ne ces sa ry to ob ta in co pi es of al l o f th e d oc um en ts in cl ud edinLake Co un ty’ s i te m iz edli stan d t o o bt ai n a tra ns cri ptof t he st at e-co urt h eari ng . AFFIRMED in pa rt, VACATED in pa rt, a nd REMANDED i n pa rt.

16 Case: 12-10592 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 16 of 16