Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a dispute over the taxation of costs following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant in a protracted commercial litigation concerning aircraft modifications and related regulatory directives. The appellant challenged the district court’s award of over $622,000 in costs, specifically contesting the inclusion of pro hac vice admission fees, costs for graphics consultants, deposition video production and synchronization, and certain prior deposition costs. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the costs award, applying an abuse of discretion standard for the award itself and de novo review for the underlying authority to award costs. The appellate court held that pro hac vice fees and expenses for editing and synchronizing deposition videotapes are not recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, as they are not explicitly authorized and fall outside the scope of 'exemplification' or 'copying' as narrowly construed in light of Supreme Court precedent. However, the court affirmed the award of costs related to graphics consultants (limited to physical document preparation) and upheld the inclusion of costs from a prior jury trial, finding no reversible error or waiver of objections. The court thus affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the matter for further proceedings, with each party bearing its own costs on appeal.
Legal Issues Addressed
Award of Graphics Consultant and Prior Trial Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the award of costs for graphics consultant services related to physical document preparation and affirmed the district court’s refusal to reconsider costs from a prior trial, as the objections were unsubstantiated or waived.
Reasoning: Conversely, the court upheld the costs for retainers and graphics consultants, as well as costs awarded from a previous jury trial in 2002. Additionally, the district court’s award of costs for graphics consultants and its refusal to reconsider a prior costs award are upheld, as Kalitta's objections lack merit or are waived.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and Prevailing Party Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reaffirmed that, under Rule 54, costs are generally awarded to the prevailing party, but only within the statutory limitations set forth in § 1920.
Reasoning: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 generally allows for costs to be awarded to the prevailing party, with 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defining allowable costs.
Interpretation of 'Exemplification' and 'Copying' for Cost Awardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court narrowly construed 'exemplification' and 'copying' under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), finding that deposition editing and synchronization do not qualify as recoverable costs because they are considered services incidental to trial preparation rather than necessary exemplification.
Reasoning: Editing deposition videotapes into clips for trial use in place of live testimony is not a taxable cost, as it is considered a service beyond mere copying and is incidental to trial preparation, similar to witness preparation. The activity does not qualify as 'exemplification' under the costs statute.
Limitation on Pro Hac Vice Admission Fees as Taxable Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that pro hac vice admission fees are not taxable under § 1920(1), as they are not specified by the Judicial Conference and are outside the scope of recoverable statutory costs.
Reasoning: The court agrees, interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1) to permit taxing only those fees specified by the Judicial Conference, which does not include pro hac vice fees. The Judicial Conference only outlines a $176 fee for original attorney admissions, which is defined as permanent, not temporary pro hac vice status.
Standard of Review for Cost Awardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that the district court’s award of costs is reviewed for abuse of discretion, while the authority to award costs is reviewed de novo.
Reasoning: The standard of review for the costs award is for abuse of discretion, while the authority to award costs is reviewed de novo.
Taxable Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that only those costs specifically enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, as interpreted strictly, are recoverable by the prevailing party. Pro hac vice admission fees and costs for editing and synchronizing deposition videotapes do not fall within these enumerated categories.
Reasoning: The panel determined that the district court incorrectly awarded $1,310 for pro hac vice fees, as 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1) does not permit such fees as taxable costs. Additionally, costs related to deposition editing and synchronizing were deemed unauthorized under § 1920, leading to a reversal of those awards.