MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LEE H. ROSENTHAL, District Judge.
On August 21, 2013, the court entered a final judgment ordering that the plaintiff, Michelle Crevier-Gerukos, take nothing against the defendants, Eisai Co., Ltd. and Eisai, Inc., and dismissing all claims against the Eisai defendants with prejudice. (Docket Entry No. 101). The court order taxed allowable and reasonable costs of court against Crevier-Gerukos. ( Id. ). On August 30, 2013, Eisai submitted their bill of costs. (Docket Entry No. 103). Crevier-Gerukos filed objections to that bill of costs, (Docket Entry No. 104), and Eisai responded, (Docket Entry No. 111). For the reasons that follow, Crevier-Gerukos's objections are sustained in part and overruled in part.
The court may award costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C § 1920. Federal Rule 54(d)(1) provides that "[u]nless a federal statute... provides otherwise, costs... should be allowed to the prevailing party." Taxable costs include:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
28 U.S.C. § 1920. Civil Rule 54 does not permit a district court to award taxable costs beyond what Congress enumerated in §1920. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-43 (1987); see also Cook Children's Med. Ctr. v. New Eng. PPO Plan, 491 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir. 2007) ("[A]bsent explicit statutory or contractual authorization to the contrary, " a court may decline to award the enumerate costs but cannot award costs omitted from that list. (quotation omitted)).
1. Fees for Necessary Printed or Electronically Recorded Transcripts
Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case are taxable costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). Eisai submitted a bill of cost for $4, 601.35 for these fees. "Whether a deposition or copy was necessarily obtained for use in the case is a factual determination to be made by the district court." Fogleman v. ARAMCO, 920 F.2d 278, 285-86 (5th Cir. 1991). The same is true for daily trial transcripts. See Holmes v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 11 F.3d 63, 64 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Because the statute refers only to "transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case, " transcripts of motion hearings and on-the-record conferences with the court are recoverable when the court finds that "they were not obtained primarily for the convenience of the parties but were necessarily obtained for use in th[e] case." Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Eastman Kodak Co., 713 F.2d 128, 133 (5th Cir. 1983). The defendants bear the burden of establishing necessity. Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 286. "A finding of necessity is a factual finding." Eastman Kodak Co., 713 F.2d at 133.
The Eisai defendants seek the following in costs ...