Opinion ID: 6157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Photocopies

Text: 3 Holmes challenges the taxing of photocopy costs on two grounds. She first argues that it was improper for the district court to allow these costs in the absence of a specific finding that the copies were necessary to the case and second, that Cessna did not demonstrate such necessity. 4 Before the district court can tax costs for photocopies, it must find that the copies for which costs are sought were necessarily obtained for use in the litigation. Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak, 713 F.2d 128, 133 (5th Cir.1983). Moreover, the party seeking such costs must offer some proof of the necessity. Fogelman v. ARAMCO (Arabian American Oil Co.), 920 F.2d 278, 286 (5th Cir.1991). 5 Although the court taxed this cost against Holmes, it neglected to make the requisite finding of necessity. In the absence of such finding, this item of cost must be vacated and remanded for the court's determination of necessity.