Opinion ID: 2982840
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The cost of Banks’s second deposition

Text: As a general matter, 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and § 1920(4) “have been interpreted to authorize taxing as costs the expenses of taking, transcribing and reproducing depositions,” and “[o]rdinarily, the costs of taking and transcribing depositions reasonably necessary for the litigation are allowed to the prevailing party.” Sales v. Marshall, 873 F.2d 115, 120 (6th Cir 1989). On appeal, Banks argues that it was improper for the district court to tax her with the $2,395 cost of her second deposition because it was not “necessarily obtained for use in the case,” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). The district court reopened discovery to give Bosch the opportunity to depose Banks a second time, due to newly-produced discovery materials. Banks’s second deposition addressed these materials and established many facts cited in support of Bosch’s successful motion for summary judgment. If it had been feasible to obtain the pertinent information from Banks in a single deposition, taxing the costs of the second deposition would be inappropriate because those costs would not be reasonable and necessary. Banks, however, has made no such showing here. The deposition was allowed in light of “newly produced discovery,” and the extensive use of the deposition in Bosch’s motion practice shows that it was “reasonably necessary for the litigation.” The district court committed no error by taxing its cost against Banks.