United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CARRILLO RAMIREZ, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
to U.S. Magistrate Judge 
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude
Disallowable Costs, filed September 19, 2018 (doc. 461).
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the
plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, and the
defendants' taxable costs will be reduced by $7, 862.02,
for a total of $9, 167.84.
April 22, 2014, HostingXtreme Ventures, LLC (Plaintiff) sued
Bespoke Group, LLC (Bespoke), Divyesh Patel (Divyesh), and
his wife, Hina Patel (Hina) (collectively Defendants), for
breach of written contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, common law
fraud, intentional interference with contractual rights, and
negligent representation. (See doc. 1.) On September 11,
2017, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Defendants on all but one of Plaintiff's claims.
(See doc. 454.) A jury rendered a verdict in
Defendants' favor on Plaintiff's remaining claim on
August 15, 2018. (Id.) On that same day, the Court
entered a final judgment in Defendants' favor and taxed
costs against Plaintiff. (Id.)
August 29, 2018, Defendants submitted their bill of costs
seeking $13, 916.43 for “printed or electronically
stored transcripts necessarily obtained for use in this case,
” and $3, 113.43 for “[f]ees and disbursements
for printing, ” for a total of $17, 029.86. (doc. 458
at 1.) On September 12, 2018, the Clerk taxed
costs in that amount against Plaintiff. (doc. 459.)
September 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking review
of the Clerk's taxing of costs under Fed.R.Civ.P.
54(d)(1). (doc. 461.) It seeks to exclude $2, 773.95 in
“reproduction charges, ” $4, 040.82 in charges
for “transcripts of hearings related to discovery
motions . . . and discovery conferences between counsel,
” and $1, 047.25 in charges for costs related to
Hina's deposition. (Id. at 3-5.) It argues that:
(1) the reproduction charges are not allowable because they
appear to be internal firm charges for copying, (2) there is
no authority for the recovery of costs for transcripts of
hearings on discovery motions or conferences between counsel,
and (3) Hina's deposition was not necessarily obtained
for use in this case. (Id.)
filed their response on October 10, 2018, and Plaintiff did
not reply. (doc. 467.) The motion is now ripe for
Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a prevailing
party in a civil action is entitled to recover its costs
unless otherwise directed by a court or statute. Fed.R.Civ.P.
54(d)(1). There is “a strong presumption that the
prevailing party will be awarded costs.” Schwarz v.
Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 352
(1981)). This presumption is rebuttable, however, and the
district court retains the discretion not to award costs.
See United States v. D.K.G. Appaloosas, Inc., 829
F.2d 532, 539 (5th Cir. 1987).
1920 strictly limits the types of costs that may be awarded
to a prevailing party.” Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep
GbR v. Eli Lilly and Co., No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 WL
3044594, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2017) (citing Crawford
Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 440-41
(1987)). As noted by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,
“[t]he Supreme Court has indicated that federal courts
may only award those costs articulated in section 1920 absent
explicit statutory or contractual authorization to the
contrary.” Mota v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health
Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512, 529-30 (5th Cir.
2001). The party seeking recovery of its costs
bears the burden of proving the amount and necessity of its
costs. See Holmes v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 11 F.3d
63, 64 (5th Cir. 1994); Fogleman v. ARAMCO (Arabian Am.
Oil Co.), 920 F.2d 278, 285-86 (5th Cir. 1991).
first argues that “reproduction charges” totaling
$2, 773.95 are not allowable because they “appear to be
. . . internal firm charge[s]” that were not
“necessary or used in this case.” (doc. 461 at
3.) Defendants respond that they are entitled to recover
these costs because they were incurred in this litigation for
printing “non-dispositive motions, dispositive motions,
discovery production, and deposition exhibits . . . .”
(doc. 467 at 4.)
§ 1920(3), “[f]ees and disbursements for
printing” are allowable taxable costs, provided that
the prevailing party demonstrates that the printed documents
were “necessarily obtained for use in the case.”
28 U.S.C. § 1920(3); W&T Offshore, Inc. v.
Apache Corp., No. H-11-2931, 2015 WL 12765421, at *2
(S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2015); see Fogleman, 920 F.2d at
286 (“reproductions necessarily obtained for use in the
case are included within taxable costs, provided that the
prevailing party demonstrates that necessity.”). The
Fifth Circuit has explained that “[the losing party]
should be taxed for the cost of reproducing relevant
documents and exhibits for use in the case, but should not be
held responsible for multiple copies of documents, attorney
correspondence, or any of the other multitude of papers that
may pass through a law firm's xerox machines.”
Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 286. While taxable costs
include charges for reproducing documents “as part of
discovery and the copies of documents filed with ...