United States District Court, N.D. California
October 12, 2005.
ULTRATECH, INC., Plaintiff,
TAMARACK SCIENTIFIC CO., Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES BREYER, District Judge
ORDER RE: TAXATION OF COSTS
In this patent action the defendant and prevailing party,
Tamarack Scientific Company, now moves for review of the Clerk's
taxation of costs. After carefully reviewing the papers submitted
by the parties, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that "costs other
than attorney's fees shall be allowed as of course to the
prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. section 1920 taxable costs
are, among other things, "fees for exemplification and copies of
papers necessarily obtained for use in the case."
28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). The Local Rules explain in more detail what papers are
"necessarily obtained for use in the case." See Affymetrix,
Inc. v. Multilyte Ltd., 2005 WL 2072113 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26,
2005) (stating that Northern District Local Rule 54-3 "provides
standards for interpreting the costs allowed under section 1920")
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 1. The Local Rules interpret section 1920 as excluding costs
for copying "motions, pleadings, notices, and other routine case
papers." Local Rule 54-3(d)(3). As this Rule is a permissible
interpretation (as opposed to contradiction) of the costs taxable
under section 1920, Tamarack's request for the taxation of costs
incurred in copying motions, pleadings, notices and other routine
case papers is overruled.
2. The number of copies for which Tamarack seeks taxation are
reasonable and necessary. Thus, to the extent the Clerk
disallowed certain costs on the ground that the number of copies
was excessive, the Clerk is overruled. The Clerk should also tax
the costs of compact discs to the extent documents were scanned
on to such discs and not also produced on hard copies.
3. The Local Rules provide that the prevailing party may
recover "[t]he cost of an original and one copy of any deposition
(including videotaped depositions) taken for any purpose in
connection with the case." Civil LR 54-3(c)(1). Under a plain
reading of this Rule Tamarack may recover the costs of written
transcripts of depositions as well as the cost of a videotaped
copy of the deposition, if the deposition was videotaped. See
Pixion v. Placeware, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11351 at *5-6
(N.D. Cal. May 25, 2005). A videotape without a written
transcript is not sufficient for use at trial.
4. Tamarack shall submit a proposed order in accordance with
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.