UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 27, 2007
OTAY LAND COMPANY, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
RAY ENNIS AND PHIL SCOTT U.E. LIMITED, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO RETAX COSTS AWARDED TO DEFENDANTS
[Dkt. Nos. 359 & 360]
Now before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motions to appeal court costs awarded to Defendants Ray Ennis and Phil Scott. Defendants are prevailing parties. Defendants sought and received from the Clerk of Court Orders awarding court costs. Unsatisfied with the Clerk's decision, Plaintiffs seek review before the District Court. The motions are denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides a party may appeal the decision on court costs rendered by the Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court awarded Defendants Ennis and Scott costs of deposition transcripts for the numerous depositions noticed by Plaintiffs' counsel. Deposition transcripts are taxable as court costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2); see also Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177-78 (9th Cir. 1990). The certified copies of deposition transcripts were necessary for Defendants Scott and Ennis and the costs award did not include the costs of additional, multiplied copies of the transcripts created solely for counsel's convenience. See Local Rule of Court 54.1.b.3.a ("The cost of an original and one copy of any deposition (including videotaped depositions) necessarily obtained for use in the case is allowable. . . . Counsel's copies are not taxable. . . ."). Therefore, the Orders of the Clerk of Court awarding costs to Ray Ennis and Phil Scott are correct and Plaintiffs' motions to re-tax costs are Denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.