Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 2, 2024
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00812
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TACTION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No.: 21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART 13 v. AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF TACTION 14 APPLE INC., TECHNOLOGY, INC.’S MOTION 15 Defendant. TO RE-TAX COSTS; AND (2) ALLOWING SUPPLEMENTAL 16 BRIEFING FROM DEFENDANT 17 APPLE INC.

18 (ECF Nos. 406, 407) 19

20 On February 8, 2024, the Clerk of Court taxed costs in Defendant Apple Inc.’s favor 21 in the amount of $69,072.06. (See generally ECF No. 406.) Presently before the Court is 22 Plaintiff Taction Technology, Inc.’s Motion to Re-Tax Costs (“Mot.,” ECF No. 407), 23 which was timely filed on February 15, 2024, as well as Defendant’s Opposition to 24 (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 409) and Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of (“Reply,” ECF No. 410) the 25 Motion. Although the Motion is noticed for a hearing on April 11, 2024, (see ECF No. 26 408), the Court determines that the Motion is appropriate for resolution on the papers 27 without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 28 / / / 1 Through the instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks only to reduce the costs taxed against it 2 by $17,756.40, representing the amount awarded for five expedited deposition transcripts, 3 on the grounds that the cost of expediting the transcripts was not “necessarily obtained for 4 use in the case” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and Civil Local Rule 54.1(b)(3).1 Plaintiff 5 contends that “the expedited processing was optional, and the transcripts could have been 6 obtained on a regular schedule instead.” (See Mot. at 3.) Defendant, on the other hand, 7 claims that the expedited transcripts were necessary because of the “short turn-around to 8 file timely motions citing to that testimony.” (See Opp’n at 2.) The Court’s review is de 9 novo. See Hesterberg v. United States, 75 F. Supp. 3d 1220, 1223 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citing 10 Lopez v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 385 F. Supp. 2d 981, 1000–01 (N.D. Cal. 11 2005)). 12 The Court agrees with those that have concluded that “the costs of expedited delivery 13 are not recoverable generally.” Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., No. C 09-01714 WHA LB, 14 2012 WL 6761576, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2012) (citing City of Alameda v. Nuveen Mun. 15 High Income Opportunity Fund, No. C 08-4575 SI, 2012 WL 177566, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 16 Jan. 23, 2012)). Defendant, as the party seeking costs, bears the burden of establishing that 17 the costs it is seeking are compensable, see Hesterberg, 75 F. Supp. 3d at 1224 (citing City 18 of Alameda, 2012 WL 177566, at *1), i.e., that expedited processing of the deposition 19 transcripts in question was truly “necessar[y].” In Meier v. United States, for example, the 20 court concluded that “[t]he costs to expedite the depositions . . . were necessary under the 21 circumstances of th[e] cases” where they “were expedited in order to accommodate the 22 tight deposition schedule plaintiff himself requested.” See No. C 05-04404 WHA, 2009 23 WL 982129, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009). Although Defendant references a “short turn- 24 around to file timely motions” as the basis for requiring expedited transcripts here, (see 25 1 Specifically, Plaintiff challenges the $2,872.95 awarded for the February 9, 2023 deposition of 26 Dr. James Biggs, (see ECF No. 396-4 at 20–21), and $2,929.50 awarded for the February 10, 2023 continuation of that deposition, (see id. at 18–19); the $4,650.00 awarded for the April 20, 2023 deposition 27 of Dr. James Oliver, (see id. at 44–45); the $3,581.55 awarded for the April 26, 2023 deposition of 28 Dr. Patrick Kennedy, (see id. at 46–47); and the $3,722.40 awarded for the May 1, 2023 deposition of 1 Opp’n at 2), “nothing in the record shows that depositions could not have been scheduled 2 earlier or that there is something special about timing that should allow expedited delivery 3 costs to be included as ‘costs’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(d).” See Plantronics, 2012 WL 4 6761576, at *6. 5 Although the Court would be well within its rights to exclude the entirety of the 6 $17,756.40 Plaintiff seeks in light of Defendant’s failure to adduce any evidence 7 concerning what portion of those costs is allocable to the expedited service surcharge, there 8 is no dispute that Apple would otherwise be entitled to recover its costs for “an original 9 and one copy of any deposition.” See S.D. Cal. CivLR 54.1(b)(3)(a). The Court therefore 10 GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 407) and RE- 11 TAXES costs in Defendant’s favor as calculated by the Clerk of Court less any surcharges 12 attributable to expediting the transcripts of the depositions of Drs. Biggs, Oliver, Kennedy, 13 and Okamura. Given that the non-expedited transcript service fee appears to be $3.90 per 14 unit, it would appear that Defendant would be entitled to $1,251.90 for the February 9, 15 2023 deposition of Dr. Biggs and $1,209.00 for the February 10, 2023 deposition of 16 Dr. Biggs;2 $1,404.00 for the April 20, 2023 deposition of Dr. Oliver;3 and $1,479.10 for 17 the April 26, 2023 deposition of Dr. Kennedy.4 Because no units are provided for 18 Dr. Okamura’s deposition, however, it is unclear to the Court what portion of the $3,722.40 19 Defendant seeks is compensable. Accordingly, Apple MAY FILE a supplemental 20 submission within seven (7) days of the electronic docketing of this Order calculating the 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25

26 2 Calculated as $3.90 x 321.00 and $3.90 x 310.00, respectively. (See ECF No. 396-4 at 18, 20.)

27 3 Calculated as $3.90 x 360.00. (See ECF No. 396-4 at 44.) 28 1 ||costs to which it is entitled once the expedited deposition transcript fees have been 2 || subtracted. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: April 2, 2024 5 [ odd (2 re 6 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28