Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Central Texas Airborne System Inc.
741 F.3d 955
9th Cir.2013Background
- Kalitta Air (successor to AIA) sued CTAS over aircraft modifications and an FAA Airworthiness Directive; after multiple trials and appeals, a jury found for CTAS.
- CTAS sought $724,021.37 in taxable costs; the clerk awarded $691,591.73; the district court later awarded $622,036.38 after reductions.
- Kalitta objected to several categories of costs: pro hac vice admission fees, graphics-consultant charges, deposition video editing/production and transcript synchronization, and certain deposition costs from a 2002 award.
- The district court allowed pro hac vice fees ($1,310), taxed some graphics and video-related costs (with reductions), and declined to revisit the 2002 costs award.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the district court had authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 to tax these categories of costs and whether the district court abused its discretion in applying local rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pro hac vice admission fees are taxable under § 1920(1) | Pro hac fees are clerical/filing fees and thus taxable | Pro hac fees are customary court fees and should be taxable costs | Reversed — pro hac vice fees are not taxable under § 1920(1) because Judicial Conference fee schedule does not list them and §1914 limits clerk fees to those prescribed by the Conference; §1920 construed narrowly (affirmed de novo review of statutory authority) |
| Whether costs for editing deposition videotapes into trial clips are taxable under § 1920(4) | Editing is necessary exemplification/copying for trial presentation | Editing is an exemplification/copying expense and thus taxable | Reversed — editing into clips is a trial-preparation service beyond copying/exemplification and not taxable under §1920(4) |
| Whether costs for synchronizing video depositions with transcripts are taxable under §1920(4) | Synchronization facilitates use of deposition and is a necessary exemplification/copying cost | Synchronization is a necessary trial presentation expense and should be taxable | Reversed — synchronization is convenience/trial-prep, not copying/exemplification; not authorized by §1920 |
| Whether costs for graphics consultants and the 2002 costs award should be revisited | Graphics consultant fees are non-compensable creation services; district court should revisit prior 2002 award | Graphics retainers/fees and the 2002 award were appropriately taxed or waived objections | Affirmed — challenges to graphics costs or the 2002 award were waived or lacked merit; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (statutory definition of taxable costs under Rule 54)
- Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997 (taxable costs are limited and statutes construed narrowly)
- United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.) (de novo review whether court has authority to award costs)
- Sea Coast Foods, Inc. v. Lu-Mar Lobster & Shrimp, Inc., 260 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir.) (abuse of discretion standard for costs awards)
- United States v. Havelock, 664 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir.) (statutory interpretation approach considering context)
- Indep. Iron Works, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 322 F.2d 656 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing trial-preparation services from taxable exemplification)
- BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 405 F.3d 415 (6th Cir.) (previously permitted some video/transcription-related costs)
- In re Williams Sec. Litig.–WCG Subclass, 558 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir.) (necessity standard does not cover convenience-enhancing materials)
- Country Vintner of N.C., LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc., 718 F.3d 249 (4th Cir.) (definition and historical meaning of “exemplification”)