See supra Part III.A, p. 4. But even if this Court followed the Tenth Circuit’s decision in English, that case is distinguishable because Defendants in this case have explained above how e-discovery costs meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), see supra Part III.B.2, pp. 5–7, and they did not simply attach a spreadsheet tallying various numbers, but instead provided declarations and/or actual invoices to support their Bills of Costs. Finally, to the extent the Court is concerned about the sufficiency of any particular Defendant’s evidentiary support for its Bill of Costs, the Court should not simply disallow all of that Defendant’s e-discovery costs, as requested by Kelora for many Defendants, but instead the Court should exercise its discretion to award what it determines is reasonable under the circumstances.

Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1428 (9th Cir. 1989); Zuill v. Shanahan, 80 F.3d 1366, 1371 (9th Cir. 1996). Item 36—“Native Reconstructed Blowbacks” GoDaddy’s cost Item 36 for “Native Reconstructed Blowbacks” should be rejected because it does not fall within any of the categories of taxable costs under Civ. L.R. 54 or 28 U.S.C. 1920. Ex.

; In re Mentor Corp. ObTape Transobturator Sling Products Liab. Litig., 2004, 2016 WL 6393589, at *8 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2016) (“[e]xpert witness fees are not recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920”). The Court should disallow the fees in line items 32, 65, 75, 76, 95 and 102-105 of Exhibit A, totaling $74,531.29, for this reason.

Similarly, the most recent case on which Nedlouf relies, Nedlouf Opp. at 5, the court stated: “the definition of ‘costs’ for Appellate Rule 7 purposes come from Rule 39, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, or the statute underlying the litigation.” In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Products Mktg.

Thus, the Tribe – and not SFWMD – is entitled to fees and costs here.3 CONCLUSION For the reasons argued above, the SFWMD is not entitled to costs against the Tribe, an Intervenor. Moreover, the SFWMD’s Verified Motion should be denied as untimely under the Local Rules, as to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and as meritless under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d) of the CWA. Instead, the Court should award costs and fees to the Tribe and plaintiffs.

As such, Apple is entitled to recover for the entire amount of its trial graphics costs. Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document2137 Filed03/25/15 Page10 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 12-CV-630-LHK (PSG) 8 APPLE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR REVIEW OF CLERK’S TAXATION OF COSTS AGAINST SAMSUNG D. E-Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, Rule 54, and Civil Local Rule 54-3, Apple requested (i) $133,765 for costs specifically attributable to uploading source code made available to Samsung, and (ii) $31,325.83 for costs specifically attributable to file processing and upload costs related to the production of documents produced to Samsung (determined as a percentage of uploaded documents produced to Samsung). (Dkt.

Bank, Case No. 09-CV-02708 LHK, 2013 WL 1345716, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013) (declining to award administrative delay costs in a Rule 7 appeal bond where plaintiff did not “concretely identify the basis for their $10,000 estimate, nor clearly distinguish the projected costs from those that could be claimed as attorney’s fees”); In re Toyota Motor Corp., 2013 WL 5775118, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013) (declining to award administrative cost delays because class plaintiffs could not “identify any applicable fee-shifting statute” that would entitled them to costs on appeal). Because the costs here are recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6), this case is also distinguishable from In re Magsafe, where in a non-precedential memorandum, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in requiring an appeals bond “given that the only applicable fee-shifting Case 2:07-cv-05107-SJO-AGR Document 716 Filed 06/30/14 Page 19 of 26 Page ID #:9545 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3228315v1/010438 15 Rule 7 does not provide explicit guidance regarding the factors to be considered in deciding whether the imposition of an appeal bond is appropriate. However, in applying Ninth Circuit authority, district courts in this Circuit have articulated three potentially relevant factors: (i) appellant’s financial ability to post a bond; (ii) the risk that appellant would not pay the costs if the appeal loses; and (iii) an assessment of the likelihood that appellant will lose the appeal and be subject to costs.

Thus, with respect to outside vendor “copies,” Dole cannot recover any of the costs it seeks. E. Compensation of Interpreters Taxable costs under 28 U.S.C § 1920(6) include, “[c]ompensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.” Dole’s Exhibit E includes $4,359.49 for Dole’s share of “Spanish/English translation for witnesses at evidentiary hearing” and $39,738.25 for translation of documents.

Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158, 167 (3d Cir.2012); Ricoh Co. v. AMI Semiconductor, 661F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 591 (7th Cir.2009) (affirming the district court's award of costs for “document processing” and holding that costs for “converting computer data into a readable format in response to plaintiffs' discovery requests ... are recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920”); BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc., 405 F.3d 415, 420 (6th Cir.2005) (affirming the district court's award of costs for electronic scanning and imaging). “28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) allows the recovery of costs for “making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.”

B. Costs for Transcripts Case 9:12-cv-80841-KAM Document 255 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2014 Page 4 of 9 Section 1920(2) authorizes the taxation of costs for the "[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case," which includes the costs of deposition transcripts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2); EEOC, 213 F.3d at 620; Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 302 F.3d 1207, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002).