Opinion
No. C 02-3787 MJJ (BZ).
September 25, 2006
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF CLERK'S TAXATION OF COSTS
By order dated September 8, 2006, the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins referred plaintiff's motion for review of the Clerk's taxation of costs to me for a report and recommendation. Plaintiff Jennifer Franet prevailed against defendant Karen Castro and submitted a bill of costs [docket #196]. After defendants objected to plaintiff's bill [docket # 198], the Clerk of this Court taxed costs [docket #272], and plaintiff filed this motion for review, arguing that the Clerk improperly reduced $3,362.63 from plaintiff's requested cost amount. Plaintiff claims that the Clerk improperly disallowed $2,467.63 of her costs incurred for court reporters' fees, such as attendance fees, expedited charges and shipping and handling costs. Plaintiff requests these charges be allowed as necessary costs of obtaining a copy of a deposition transcript. Plaintiff additionally argues that since defendants' late disclosure of their expert witnesses led to the expedited charges, the Court should allow these costs. Plaintiff also argues that the Clerk should tax costs in the amount of $895 for video equipment rental, which she used to present a trial exhibit, a videotaped interview of her daughter. The Court reviews the Clerk's taxation of costs de novo. Lopez v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 385 F.Supp.2d 981, 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
Plaintiff is entitled to her costs for video equipment rental necessarily obtained for use in the case. See 29 U.S.C. § 1920(4); Civil L.R. 54-3(d)(5) (allowing cost of preparing videotapes to be used as exhibits if they "are reasonably necessary to assist the jury or the Court in understanding the issues at the trial"). Pixion Inc. v. PlaceWare Inc., 2005 WL 3955889, at * 4 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2005). Although defendants cite Eleventh Circuit cases which do not allow the costs of video equipment rental to be taxed, the courts are divided over this issue. See Walters v. Monarch Life Ins. Co., 1993 WL 256755, at * 2 (D. Kan. Jun. 29, 1993); Brown Williamson Tobacco Co. V. Jacobson, 1987 WL 20431, at * 9 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 1987). Because this Court allows parties to recover the costs of preparing videotapes used as exhibits, and defendant does not dispute that it was necessary to show the videotaped interview of plaintiff's daughter at trial, plaintiff is entitled to her video equipment rental charges, and I recommend that the Court order the Clerk to tax costs in the amount of $895.
Plaintiff may recover her expedited charges for the transcripts of defendants' expert witnesses, which were necessary charges. The depositions of defendants' expert witnesses occurred on September 15 and 16, 2005, a few days before the trial scheduled for September 19, 2005. See Lopez, 385 F.Supp.2d at 1002 (awarding costs for expedited transcripts ordered in the three months before trial as discovery was concluding). Plaintiff is also entitled to her costs associated with court reporters' fees for attendance and shipping and handling. See Ishida Co., Ltd. V. Taylor, 2004 WL 2713067, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2004).
Defendants' argument in response to plaintiff's motion, that if the Court allows plaintiff's court reporter's fees, then defendants' similar disallowed fees should also be taxed, is not a proper motion. Civil L. R 54-5. Even if the Court were to consider it a motion, it would be untimely.
Therefore, I recommend that plaintiff's motion be granted and the Court order the Clerk to tax additional costs in the amount of $3,362.63.