Opinion ID: 3159184
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deposition Transcripts and Copies

Text: Deposition Transcripts and Copies: A deposition or deposition copy “need not be introduced into evidence at trial in order to be ‘necessarily obtained for use in the case’” under § 1920; rather, the cost of a deposition or copy that is reasonably expected to be used for trial or trial preparation may be taxable. See Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 285–86. Whether a deposition or copy was necessarily obtained for use in the case is a factual determination within the district court’s discretion, and “[w]e accord the district court great latitude in this determination.” Id. To the extent that Long objects to these depositions and copies because he thinks they were not necessary for GSD&M’s use in the case, we reject this complaint. 5 Video Depositions: Long separately asserts that the district court erred in awarding costs for video depositions because they are not covered by § 1920. That statute has been amended such that we conclude that the cost of taking video depositions may be awarded if shown to be necessary for use in the case 5 As noted below, we reverse the award of costs for several discrete items, but we decline to reverse the entire award as Long requests. 6 Case: 14-11049 Document: 00513289942 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 No. 14-11049 under § 1920(2). Cf. S & D Trading Acad., LLC v. AAFIS Inc., 336 F. App’x 443, 450–52 (5th Cir. 2009) (describing how this court once held that the costs of taking a video deposition were not recoverable under § 1920, but implying that such costs may be chargeable under the language of § 1920 as amended in 2008). 6 As we noted in S & D Trading, § 1920(2) used to provide that fees could be awarded “for all or part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Id. at 450 (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (2006). In 2008, § 1920(2) “was amended to state that a judge may tax as costs ‘[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.’” Id. at 450–51 (emphasis added) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) (version in effect in 2009)). The phrase “electronically recorded transcripts” includes video transcripts of depositions. Video AND written deposition transcripts: In his reply brief, Long argues that awarding costs for copies of both the video and written transcript of the same deposition is improper. We need not decide this issue 7 because Long inadequately briefed this argument before the district court and this court, focusing his argument on whether the cost of video depositions should be awarded at all. He failed to make the more specific argument or cite any authority on the more specific issue of awarding both types of costs until his reply brief before this court. On such inadequate briefing and argument, we decline to decide the question of whether costs for both videography and written transcripts may be awarded for the same deposition under § 1920(2). 6 Although S & D Trading is not “controlling precedent,” it “may be [cited as] persuasive authority.” Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4). 7 See, e.g., Stanley v. Cottrell, Inc., 784 F.3d 454, 465–67 (8th Cir. 2015); In re Ricoh Co., Patent Litig., 661 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Plambeck, 66 F. Supp. 3d 782, 786–93 (N.D. Tex. 2014); Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., No. 4:06CV655RWS, 2010 WL 1935998, at  (E.D. Mo. May 10, 2010). 7 Case: 14-11049 Document: 00513289942 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 No. 14-11049 See generally FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Webb v. Investacorp, Inc., 89 F.3d 252, 257 n.2 (5th Cir. 1996). 2. Copying Costs, Exemplification, and TIFF Formatting Copying Costs and Exemplification: Long contends that GSD&M should not have been awarded the copying and exemplification costs it claimed because it failed to properly itemize these costs and impermissibly sought reimbursement for electronic discovery expenses not covered by § 1920. GSD&M presented sufficient documentation to justify an award of costs for its copying and exemplification expenses. GSD&M submitted a sworn declaration by one of its attorneys, Christopher J. Fawal, attesting to the necessity of the claimed costs, along with invoices describing those costs. The district court found the incurred costs were necessary in the case. We have held that district courts did not abuse their discretion in analogous situations, and we find no abuse of discretion here. See, e.g., United Teacher Assocs. Ins. Co. v. Union Labor Life Ins. Co., 414 F.3d 558, 574–75 (5th Cir. 2005); DP Sols., Inc. v. Rollins, Inc., 353 F.3d 421, 434 (5th Cir. 2003). TIFF Conversion: We have not determined precisely which costs may be awarded under § 1920 since the 2008 amendments, including what costs of electronic discovery are taxable. Here, Long objects in broad terms that § 1920 does not cover the costs of production, including character recognition and the conversion of documents to TIFF format from native format. However, he does not itemize what portions of GSD&M’s claims are attributable to purportedly non-recoverable costs. Before the district court and this court, Long simply objected to awarding any discovery-related costs and pointed out that conversion and character recognition costs should not be awarded because he had agreed to production in native format. Courts have not uniformly addressed which electronic discovery costs are recoverable under the most recent version of § 1920(4), including whether TIFF 8 Case: 14-11049 Document: 00513289942 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 No. 14-11049 conversion and character recognition should be taxable. See, e.g., Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., 781 F.3d 293, 296–98 (6th Cir. 2015) (affirming a district court’s award of the costs attributable to imaging hard drives under § 1920(4)); Country Vintner of N. Carolina, LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc., 718 F.3d 249, 259–61 (4th Cir. 2013) (affirming the district court’s finding that, “in [that] case, only the conversion of native files to TIFF and PDF formats, and the transfer of files onto CDs, constituted ‘making copies’ under § 1920(4)”); Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158, 171 (3d Cir. 2012) (holding that “only the scanning of hard copy documents, the conversion of native files to TIFF, and the transfer of VHS tapes to DVD involved [taxable] ‘copying,’” under § 1920(4)); cf. CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 737 F.3d 1320, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (analyzing what costs should be awarded by questioning what type of production was required of a party during electronic discovery). We need not resolve that disagreement today, because we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s award of conversion and character recognition costs. GSD&M attested that these costs were necessarily incurred for discovery responses and use in the case, and GSD&M did not request all of the electronic discovery costs it incurred. In fact, GSD&M provided invoices with descriptions the costs requested and noted which costs it did not request. Viewing this evidence, the district court found § 1920 allowed for the award of these costs and that they were necessarily incurred. Without an itemization by Long of which costs were not permissible and an explanation of why § 1920 does not cover those costs, we find no abuse of discretion in this award. 3. Expert Fees and Miscellaneous Expenses Finally, Long argues that the district court abused its discretion in awarding GSD&M fees for shipping, binding, tabbing, expedition of transcripts, and other extra costs related to witness depositions. Long has 9 Case: 14-11049 Document: 00513289942 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 No. 14-11049 enumerated each of these costs. GSD&M claims it was necessary to obtain expedited transcripts because “Long noticed eight depositions in eight days” during September 2013 and “GSD&M needed the transcripts for preparation.” Additionally, GSD&M claims it needed expedited transcripts to file its dispositive motions on time, since the last of Long’s depositions took place one month before the deadline. It appears that both sets of depositions took place between ten days and one month before a dispositive motions deadline set by joint scheduling order. However, we have held that a copy of a deposition obtained on an expedited basis “is not taxable unless prior court approval of expedition has been obtained or the special character of the litigation necessitates expedited receipt of the transcript.” Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 286. The character of this litigation does not suggest that GSD&M could not have obtained an extension to file dispositive motions, nor that the timing was particularly crucial. 8 We therefore conclude that the award of costs should be modified to delete the award of this $3463.62 in costs to expedite deposition transcripts. Long also contests the award of costs for extra services like shipping, binding, and tabbing of depositions. As with the cost of expediting transcripts of depositions, incidental costs like shipping, binding, and tabbing are generally not taxable, as these costs are not listed in § 1920. See, e.g., Wahl v. Carrier Mfg. Co., 511 F.2d 209, 217 (7th Cir. 1975); Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Safeway, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00800-WCB, 2015 WL 4776501, at –4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2015). The Supreme Court has instructed federal courts not to award costs not articulated in § 1920 as taxable, and these types of costs are nowhere 8 GSD&M attempts to rely on Thanedar v. Time Warner, Inc., 352 F. App’x 891, 903 (5th Cir. 2009), in which this court affirmed an award of expedition costs where the district court gave appellees forty-two days “to obtain a 1270-page transcript, review it, and submit detailed findings of fact.” However, in that case, the district court specifically found that the expedited trial transcripts were necessary. 10 Case: 14-11049 Document: 00513289942 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 No. 14-11049 enumerated in the statute. See Gagnon, 607 F.3d at 1045. Accordingly, we conclude that the award of costs must be modified to delete the award of $429 for shipping, tabbing, binding, and other such costs. Finally, the parties agree that the district court should not have awarded GSD&M $4354.41 in fees for Edward Moore, GSD&M’s expert witness, or $323.86 in PACER fees. Instead, the parties argue GSD&M should simply have been awarded $802 for its expert witness fees, the maximum allowable by statute. We accordingly MODIFY the district court’s award of $4354.41 in expert witness fees, reducing that amount by $3552.41, to $802.00. We also REVERSE the award of $323.86 in PACER fees altogether.