Allstate Insurance v. Plambeck
66 F. Supp. 3d 782
N.D. Tex.2014Background
- Plaintiffs won judgment; filed two bills of costs seeking $119,162.37 and $19,531.57; the Clerk taxed those amounts against Defendants.
- The Chiropractic Defendants moved to review taxation of costs, challenging (1) duplication for stenographic transcripts and videorecordings of the same depositions and (2) charges for multiple sets of copied documents.
- The Magistrate Judge reviewed statutory standards under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and (4), and Fifth Circuit precedent requiring that costs be "necessarily obtained for use in the case."
- Defendants argued videos should not be taxable unless actually used at trial and that multiple copy sets exceeded necessary copies.
- Plaintiffs explained many videos were reasonably expected to be used at trial (some were used), some were for witnesses possibly beyond subpoena range or unavailable, some used in mediation, and multiple copy sets were required by multiple defense counsel and pro se defendants.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion: both transcript and video costs are recoverable if each was "necessarily obtained for use," and the challenged copy costs were justified by the number of parties/filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recoverability of both stenographic transcripts and videotaped depositions under §1920(2) | Both transcript and video are recoverable if each was reasonably expected to be used for trial prep or trial | Statutory "or" means only one (transcript or video) should be taxed; videos not taxable unless actually used at trial | Court: §1920(2) allows taxing both transcript and video if each was "necessarily obtained for use in the case" (inclusive "or") |
| Taxability of video costs for depositions not played at trial | Videos were reasonably expected to be used (some used at trial, mediation, or for witnesses potentially unavailable/subpoena-proof) | Videos not used at trial so not "obtained for use in the case" and thus not taxable | Court: Specific challenged videos were reasonably expected to be used when taken; taxed video costs allowed |
| Taxability of video copies of depositions taken by defendants | Plaintiffs obtained copies for possible trial presentation | Copies unnecessary if defendant took the original; not taxable | Court: Copies were reasonably obtained for use (anticipation of trial), taxed costs allowed |
| Multiple sets of copying charges under §1920(4) | Multiple sets were necessary due to multiple defense counsel, pro se defendants, and court/certified mail service requirements | At most 2–3 sets were necessary; extra sets are for counsel convenience and not taxable | Court: Copies were necessarily obtained (summary-judgment filings, multiple counsel/pro se parties); taxed copying costs allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 132 S. Ct. 1670 (interpretation starts with statutory text and context)
- Taniguchi v. Kan P. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997 (§1920 items interpreted by ordinary meaning in statutory context)
- Gaddis v. United States, 381 F.3d 444 (en banc) (courts may interpret §1920 language though scope of recoverable costs is limited)
- Fogleman v. ARAMCO, 920 F.2d 278 (deposition costs taxable if necessarily obtained for use in the case)
- Tilton v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 115 F.3d 1471 (10th Cir.) (both transcript and videotape often necessarily obtained)
- Baisden v. I'm Ready Prods., Inc., 793 F. Supp. 2d 970 (videotape captures nonverbal evidence and may be necessary)
- United States v. Kolesar, 313 F.2d 835 (trial preparation often requires deposition materials)