Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc., No. 4:2019cv01145 - Document 136 (S.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO PAY COSTS - For the reasons stated in § II.A, Sunoco's objection toUSV's request for "Digitizing & Transcript Synchronization" costs totaling $1,330.00 is SUSTAINED; and for the reasons stated in § II.B, Sunoco's objection to the costs that USV seeks for video depositions of Sunoco's witness is OVERRULED. Accordingly, Plaintiff Sunoco's 127 Objections to Defendant's Bill of Costs, are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART. For the reasons explained in§ II.C, Sunoco is ORDERED to PAY COSTS in the amount of $35,350.80. This Order to Pay Costs is STAYED until thirty (30) days after the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues a mandate in Sunoco' s appeal. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc. Doc. 136 Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 16 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR I CT COURT FOR THE SOUT HERN DI STRIC T OF TEXAS HOUSTON DI VISION SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TE RMINALS L.P ., § § § § § § § § § § Plai ntiff , v. U . S . VENT URE , INC ., Defendant. June 21, 2022 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CI VIL ACT I ON NO. H- 19-1145 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO PAY COSTS On May 9 , En try No . 12 4) On May 23 , Costs " ) 2022 , USV filed a Bill of Costs ( Docket Terminals Entr y aga i nst L. P. Fina l No. the 125) seeking Plaintiff , ("Sunoco") . USV costs Sunoco also ( Docket Declaration Entry in No . Support 1 2 6) . of Sunoco in the Partners filed t he ( "U SV " ) . amount of Marketing Declaration & of Inc.'s Bill of Costs Defendant ' s has Inc. (Docket ( " Defendant ' s Bill of Kimberly K. Dodd in Support of U.S. Vent ur e , ( " Dodd Judgment in favor of Defendant , U . S. Ven ture, 2022 , $59 , 454 . 63 the court entered a filed Bill of Plaintiff Costs " ) Sunoco ' s Objections to Defendant's Bill o f Costs ("Plaintiff ' s Object i ons " ) (Docket Entry No. Sunoco ' s 127) , Objec ti ons Plaintiff ' s Declaration to USV has filed U.S . Vent u re ' s Response to Bill Kimberly Costs (Doc ket Objections") of of K. Dodd ("Defenda nt's Entry in No. Support Response 1 28) , of U. S . and to the Ventu re' s Response to Sunoco ' s Objec ti ons t o Bill of Costs ( "Dodd Declaration in Support Sunoco has of Defendant ' s filed Plaintiff Response " ) Su n oco ' s ( Docket Reply in Entr y No. Support 12 9) . of its Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 16 Objections to Bill of Costs No . 135). to ("Pl aintiff ' s Rep l y " ) (Docket Entry For the reasons exp l ained below Plai n t if f ' s Objections Defendant ' s Bill of Costs will be sustained in part and overruled in part , Sunoco will be ordered to pay USV costs in the amount of $35 , 350 . 80 . stayed until thi rty Appeals for the Executio n of this Order to Pa y Costs will be ( 30) Federal days after the United States Court of Circ ui t issues a mandate in Sunoco ' s appeal. I. Standard of Review Federal Rule of Civil Procedu re 54 (d) (1) sta t es that "[u] nless a federal statute, otherwise , cos ts - these rules, or a court other than attorney's fees - to the prevai lin g party. " order provides should be allowed Taxat i on of costs under Rule 54(d) is a matter within the court's discretion. See Taniguc hi v . Ka n Pacific Saipan , (2012) courts Ltd ., the 132 S . Ct. d i scretion to 1 997 , 2001 awar d costs ( " [Ru l e] 54(d) gives to prevail i ng part ies.") . Nevertheless , Rul e 54 ( d) ( 1) "contains a strong presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded costs ," Pacheco v . Mineta , 448 F . 3d 783, 793 (5th Cir . ) , cert . denied , 127 S. Ct. 299 (2006) , and [a] s a res ul t of this cos t- shifting pres ump ti on , the general discretion conferred by Rule 54 ( d) ( 1) has been circumsc ribed by the judicia ll y - crea ted cond i t i on that a court "may neither deny nor reduce a prevailing party ' s request for cost[s] without first articulating some good reason for doing so. " Id . at 7 94 ( quoti n g Schwarz v . Folloder , 767 F . 2d 125 , 131 (5th Cir . 1985)) . -2- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 16 Id. The court may only tax as costs the expenses that are listed in 28 U.S.C . § 1 920: ( 1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; ( 2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts ne cessar ily obtained for use in the case ; (3) Fees and disbursements for print ing and witnesses ; (4) Fees for exemplification and costs of making cop ies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case ; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 o f this tit le; ( 6) Compe nsati on of court-appointed experts , compensation of interpreters, and salaries , fees, expenses , and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title. See Crawford Fitting Co . v . J .T. Gibbons , Inc ., 107 S . Ct. 2494 , 2497 - 98 Costs (1987) . that are not authorized by statute See id. at contract must be borne by the party incurring them. 2498. See also Coats v . Penrod Drilling Corp ., 5 F. 3d 877 , (5th Cir. 1993) , cert. denied , 114 S . Ct . 1303 (1994) or 8 91 (" a district court may dec line to award costs list ed in the statute but may not award costs omitted from the list") . "If the party being taxed has not specifically objected to a cost, the presumption is that the costs being sought were necessarily incurred for use in the case and will be taxed ." F.Supp. 2d 970 , has been 973 raised, Baisden v . I'm Ready Productions , Inc ., (S .D. Tex. 2 011 ) . the party seeking However, costs 793 once an objection bears the b ur den of verifying that the costs were necessarily incurred for use in the case rather than merely for discovery or for the convenience of counsel . Id. at 977 (citing Fogleman v . ARAMCO (Arabi an American Oil Co . ), 920 F.2d 278 , 285 (5 th Cir. 1991)). -3- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 4 of 16 II. Defendant ' s Bill Analysis of Costs see ks $59 , 454 . 63 as " [ f] ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case. " 1 Sunoco objects to the in c l usion of $30 , 896 . 33 in surc h arges and ancillary deposition expenses that do not fal l within the list of recoverable items in 28 U. S . C . § 1 920[ , and] to the inclusion o f $9 , 076 . 00 in costs for depositio n videos that were not necessary for use in the case and therefore duplicat i ve to the cost of the written transcripts . Accordingly , Sunoco requests that USV ' s Bill of Costs be reduced from $59 , 454 . 63 to $19,482 . 30. 2 Sunoco sets fo r th the specific costs to which it objects in two tables ; the first showing s u rc h arges and anci l lary deposition expenses tota lin g $30 , 896 . 33 ; 3 a n d the second show i ng e x penses for deposition v ideos totaling $9 , 076.00. "[ p]ayment for [u]ntil Sunoco ' s [a]ny [a]ssessed 4 Sunoco also argues that [c]osts [s ]hou l d be [s]tayed [a]ppeal [i]s [d] enied ." 5 1 Docket Entr y No . 1 25 . See also Spreads h eet , Exhibit 1 to Dodd Declaration in Support of Defendant ' s Bi ll of Costs , Docke t Entry No . 126 -1, p . 3 . Page numbers for docket entries in the record refer to the pagination in serted at the top of the page by the court ' s e l ectronic filing system , CM/ECF . 2 Plaintiff ' s Objections , Docket Entry No . 1 27 , p. 1. 3 Id . at 4- 5 . 4 Id. at 6-7. 5 Id . at 7 . See also Plaintiff ' s Reply , Docket Entry No . 135, p. 6. - 4- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 5 of 16 USV responds that it "[n]o the [d]eposition - [r]elated [l] onger [ c ] osts ," 6 [r]equests but arg u es [c]ertain of that it is maintaining its requests for $6 ,7 92 . 50 for " Video - MPEG/Digitizing ," and for $1 , 330 . 00 for "Video Digitization & Transcript Sync , " 7 because the video depositions were necessarily obtained for use in the case. costs, 8 Because ~. support , it has agreed to forego certain deposition for video electronic access and for concierge tech USV is now seeking costs in the amount of $36 , 680 . 80 . 9 Asserting that Sunoco has not lodged specific objections to the costs for video depositions of the following witnesses , USV agues that those costs are presumed taxable: (1) Marti n Tomczyk; (2) Todd Patterson ; (3) Jerry Selinger ; ( 4) Charles Lieder; ( 5) Char l es Maier ; (6) Elyse Stackhouse ; (7) Daniel Morrill; (8) Christopher Lamirande ; (9) Michael Koe l; (10) James Malackowski ; and (11) Eric Kessenich. 10 USV "does not oppose staying e n forcement of a n y award of costs pending Sunoco ' s appeal ." n 6 Defendant ' s Response to Plaintiff's Object i ons , Docket Entry No. 128, p . 4 7 Id. 8 Id. at 4 - 9 . 9 Spreadsheet , Exhibit 1 to Dodd Declaration in Defendant ' s Res p onse , Docket Entry No . 129-1, p. 1 1 . 10 Support of Defendant ' s Response to Plaintiff's Objections , Docket Entry No. 128, pp . 7-8. Despite USV ' s contention to the contrary , Sunoco has objected to video deposition cost for Cha rl es Maier . See Plaintiff's Objections , Docket Entry No. 127 , p . 6 . n rd . at 11. - 5- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 6 of 16 Sunoco replies that it " will accept USV's representation that the "MPEG/Digitizing" charge on some invoices is a charge for the video itself , and accord i ngly withdraw its objection to those costs for USV witnesses . in an effort to narrow the disputes for the Court to resolve ." 12 However , Sunoco maintains its objection to USV ' s request for " Digitizing & Transcript Synchronization " costs , because the descriptio n and invoices make clear those are a separate charge for " synchronizing " the video with the transcript . USV 's Response does not exp la in why that synchronization was necessary . Therefore it is not recoverable. 13 Sunoco also maintains its objection to USV ' s request for the _costs associated with the video depositions of Sunoco witnesses . USV ' s Response focuses on its own witnesses that it may need for its case-in-chief at tr i al . But USV never exp l ains why videos of Sunoco witnesses were reasonably necessary in this case . Accordingly , it has not met its burden to recover those costs . Removing those costs , the maximum USV should recover 14 is $23,513.90. Sunoco ( 2) identifies Charles Maier; the ( 3) (5) John Legge ; and (6) Sunoco witnesses as : Eli zabe th Parzanese ; ( 1) ( 4) Harri Kytomaa ; Joseph Colella; Jeffrey Compton. 15 12 Plaintiff ' s Reply , Docket Entry No . 135 , p . 2 . 15 Plaintiff ' s Objections , Docket Entry No . 127, pp . 6-7. - 6- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 7 of 16 A. Sunoco' s Objections to USV' s Request Synchronization Costs will be Sustained Three of the " Digitizing & invoices Transcript USV has Transcript for submitted contain costs Synchronization ," for $1 , 330 . 00 . 16 tota li ng Citing Royall v . Enterprise Products Co ., Civil Action No . 3 : 19 - cv92 , 2021 WL 4198400 (S .D. Tex . March 17, 2021) , Su noco objects to the $1 , 330.00 that USV seeks for " Digitizing & Transcript Sync " because these do not appear to be charges for the actual transcripts, exhibits , videos , or the time of the court reporter and videographer , which appear to be billed [differently] . . [B]ased on their descr ipti on , these are charges for unnecessary modificat ion s to the transcripts or videos , done for the convenience of the attorneys . These charges for "digitizing" and " syncing " are therefore not recoverable . 1 7 In Royall the court found persuasive other cases from this district in which the courts " declined synchronizatio n charges ." Ci ting No . Faludi H-1 6 - 3467 , v. to award [costs Id. at* 3 & n. 27 U. S . Shale 2020 WL 2042322 Solutions , (S.D. Tex. for] video - (co ll ecting cases) . LLC , Apri l Civil 28 , Action 2020) , USV responds that Sunoco is incorrect . These are the charges for obtaining the deposition videos . This is clear from the fact that (1) the only other line items on the invoices for these 16 See Exh ibit 2 to Dodd Declaration in Support of Bill of Costs , Docket Ent ry No . 126-2 , p. 9 ($285 . 00 bi ll ed on invoice for depositions of Andrew Kie per and Logan Brandt) , 11 ($570 .0 0 billed on invoice for depositions of Darrin Tedford , Pete Abel and Tim Van den Langenberg) , and 13 ($475 . 00 billed on invoice for depositions of Paul Gibows ki, Richard Theis , and Vaughn Parker) . 17 Plaintiff ' s Objections , Docket Entry No . 127 , p . 3 . Plaintiff ' s Rep l y , Docket Entry No . 135 , p . 2 . - 7- See also Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 8 of 16 videos are "Media and Cloud Services" and " Shipping and Handling" and (2) that USV received the videos . Because Sunoco has incorrectly assumed these charges were not "charges for the . . videos ," it has not objected to the video costs for these nine videos and , therefore, these videos should be taxed . 18 USV notes that " [t]o the extent Synchronization ' charges synchronization , this Court cost." 19 based on because do not the parse ' Video out the Digit izing portion for & the has broad discretion to award that In Faludi this court awarded costs for video depositions the of defendant ' s uncertainty as explanation to whether that they the were deponents necessary would be available to testify at trial and because there would likely be a credibility issue as to their testimony , but declined to award costs for post - production video services because the defendant did not respond to the plaintiff ' s services were not recoverable. objection that costs for those 2020 WL 2042322 , at *2. Asserting that the charges for Media and Cloud Services "are the charges for the actual video cost ," Sunoco replies that the synchronization cost is just what it describes - an additional cost for syncing the transcript with the video . Importantly , the costs for creating the videos do not appear on these invoices to USV because these are all witnesses that Sunoco deposed , meaning Sunoco paid for the video creation costs . See , ~ . DE 1 26 - 2 at 40 (show ing additional charges for creating the videos when it was a Sun oco witness deposed by USV) . USV ' s only cost 18 Defendant ' s Response , Docket Entry No. 128 , p . 5 . 19 Id. n . 1. -8- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 9 of 16 to receive a copy was the $42 . 00 disc fee , which Sunoco is not objecting to . Bu t USV should not recover the additional $1 , 330 in syn c h ronization costs that were purchased for USV ' s convenie n ce . According l y , the costs in USV ' s Response should be reduced [by $1 , 330] to $336 . 00 as sh o wn below : Witness (es) USV Requested Amount (DE 128 at 4) Reduction (Sync Costs) Correct Costs Tedford , Abe l , and Vanden Langenberg $696 . 00 $570 . 00 $126 . 00 Gi bowsk i , Th eis , a n d Pa r ke r $60 1. 0 0 $ 475 . 00 $ 1 26 .00 Ki eper and Brandt $369 . 00 $285 . 00 $84 . 00 Total Req u e s ted $ 1, 666 .0 0 Total Deduc ti on $ 1 , 330 . 00 $336 . 0 0 20 Correct Cos t s The invoices at issue lists costs for media and cloud services o n a "per disk " basis , costs for vide o digitizing and transcript synchronization , and costs for shipping and handling video media . 2 1 Because the invoice for the video of Sunoco witness Char l es Maier wh o USV deposed includes a numbe r of additi o nal charges associated with creation of the vide o , 22 the court finds Suno co ' s argument that the c o sts USV seeks t o recover for digitization and 20 Plaintiff ' s Reply , Do cke t Entry No . 1 35 , pp . 3-4 . 21 See Exhibit 2 to Dodd Declaration in Support Costs , Docket Entry No. 126 - 2 , pp . 9 , 11 , and 13 . 22 of Bill of See id . at 4 0 ( inv o ice for Suno co witness Charles Maier , which includes charges for video - initial services , vide o -additi o nal hours , vide o - MPEG/Digitizing , and v ide o - ele c tronic a ccess) . - 9- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 10 of 16 transcript synchronization are incidental , post-production costs incurred for t h e conven i ence of the attorneys more persuasive than USV ' s argument that they are cos t s incurred to obtain the videos . Because courts in this district commonly decline to award costs for post - production video-synchronization , Sunoco ' s objection to USV ' s request for " Digitizing & Transcript Synchronization " costs totaling $1 , 330 . 00 will be sustained . B. Sunoco's Objections to USV's Request for the Costs of Video Depositions of Sunoco's Witnesses will be Overruled Defendant ' s Bill of Costs seeks the cost of videotape recordings for all 24 of the depositions for which it has requested transcripts , to t aling $23 ,1 96 . 56 . 23 objections , USV eliminated its costs , maintained but Transcript its In requests requests for Synchronization addressed in respo n se to Sunoco ' s for many categories Video § Digitization II . A , above , and of and for Video - MPEG/Digitizing . 24 In reply Sun oco accepts USV ' s representation that charges for . "MPEG/Digitizing" on some invoices are charges for the video itself and withdraws its objection to those costs for USV witnesses . 25 "Sunoco maintains its objection to USV ' s request for the But costs 23 See Spreadsheet , Exhibit 1 to Dodd Declaration in Supp ort of Bill of Costs , Docket Entry No . 126 -1, p. 3 . 24 Defendant ' s Response to Plaintiff ' s Objections , Docket Entry No . 128, p . 4 . 25 Plaintiff ' s Reply , Docket Entry No . 135 , p . 2 . -10- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 11 of 16 associated with the video depositions of Sunoco witnesses ," 26 arguing that USV ' s Response foc u ses on its own wi tnesses that it may need for its case-in - chief at trial . Bu t USV never explains why videos of Sunoco witnesses were reasonably necessary in this case . Accordingly , it has not met its burden to recover these costs. 27 Citing Baisden , 793 F . Supp . 2d at 977 , Sunoco argues that [t]his Court has allowed add i tional video costs when the videos were u sed at tria l a nd only recorded f or witnesses whose live attendance at trial was uncertain or whose credibility was d i sputed . USV has failed to establish either. There was no trial in this case and USV has not shown that it would be reas onab ly necessary to have videos of Sunoco witnesses at trial. In particular , USV ' s Response does not explain why the testimony of Sunoco ' s witnesses is necessary for USV ' s case-in - chief (whe re it may have played a video) . It a l so does not argue tha t the credibility of any of Sunoco ' s witnesses was disputed or that v ideo depositions would be needed for that p u rpose . Indeed , in the prior trial USV used a paper transcript when attempting to impeach a Sunoco witness . See DE 127 - 2 at 91 : 20 - 92 : 25 . USV ' s only counter argument is essentially " you never know what you might need ." But of course that is always tr u e . USV has not explained why each video of Sunoco witnesses was reasonably necessary in this case . According l y , USV should no t recover $11 , 732 . 50 in costs for videos of Sunoco witnesses. 28 In Baisden the court observed that a deposition need not be introduced into evidence in order to be necessary , and that costs 28 Id. at 4-5 . See especially Table on p . 5 detailing the specific costs to which Sunoco objec ts for the following six witnesses : Harri Kytomma , Charles Maeir , Elizabeth Parzanese , Joseph Colella , John Legge , and Jeffrey Compton . -11- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 12 of 16 may be recovered if the prevailing party shows that "'a deposition could reasonably be expected to be used for trial preparation , rather than merely for 793 discovery . '" (quoting Fogleman , 920 F.2d at 285) . F. Supp. 2d at 977 The court allowed costs for both videotaped and stenographic versions of the depositions for which the prevailing party requested costs but noted that "[ v]ideo depositions were taken for several , but not all the witnesses in [the] case, " defendants showed portions o f several of the videos during the trial , and the plaintiff did not dispute that the on ly videos taken were of witnesses whose live attendance was uncertain or whose credibility was sharply disputed . Id . at 977-78. "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 , 920 F . 3d at 285 - 86 . While Sunoco argues that USV has failed to establish either that it is uncertain that the Sunoco witnesses will credibility wi ll be be available disputed , the for court trial is or that their persuaded that USV necessarily obtained the video depositions of Sunoco ' s witnesses for use in the case . several relevant facts. Sunoco ' s arguments to the contrary ignore For example , USV has asserted that all of the requested video costs were necessarily obtained for use in this case because , at the time they were taken , the depositions could reasonably be expected to be used for trial preparation and not merely for discovery . Nor we r e the videos obtained merely for the convenience of counsel . 29 29 Defendant ' s Response , Docket Entry No . 128 , pp . 9-10 . -12- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 13 of 16 USV has also asserted without ob j ection that "[ o]f t h e 24 witnesses deposed, all b u t four (Elizabe th Parzanese , Jef f rey Compton , Todd Patterson , and Jerry Selinger) are outside the subpoena power o f the Court ." 30 Parzanese , In addition , t h ree of Sunoco ' s witnesses (Elizabeth Cha r les Maier , and J oseph Colella) , inc l uding two of whom are outs i de the subpoena power of the court (Charles Maier and Joseph Colella) , litigation is are Sunoco ' s Rul e 30 (b) ( 6) often complex , and the designees. 31 litigat i on parties has a long and tortuous h istory. Patent between these Sunoco does not argue that when the v i deo depositions were taken and the stenograph i c versions were produced , USV did not reasonably expect to use bot h the video and stenographic versions of the depos i tions to prepare for and to try t his case . Baisden, Moreover , as this co u rt observed in " it ca n not be said t h at a videotape of a deposition is wholly duplicative of a transcr i pt of the same deposition because the while t he videotape capt u res both verba l and nonverbal communication ." 793 F. transcript Supp. only 2d at 977 captures verbal commun i cat i on , (quoting Farnsworth v . Covid i en , Inc ., Civi l Action No . 4:08CV01689 , 2010 WL 2160900 , at* 2 (E . D. Mo . May 28 , 2010)) . 30 Based on the facts and circumstances o f this case , the Id. at 11. 31 March 18 , 2021 , Email from Mike Krill to Ki mberly K. Dodd identifying Sunoco ' s Rule 30 (b) (6) witnesses , Exh ibit 2 to Dodd Declaration in Support of Defendant ' s Response , Docket Entry No . 129-2 , p . 2. - 1 3- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 14 of 16 court finds that USV necessarily obtained videotaped versions of the depositions of Sunoco' s witnesses, Harri Kytomaa, Charles Maier, Elizabeth Parzanese, Joseph Colella, John Legge, and Jeffrey Compton, Adobe See Eolas Technologies Inc. for use in this case. Systems , Inc., 891 aff'd, 521 F. App'x 928 F.S upp. 2d 803, (Fed . Cir . 2013) 806 (E.D. Tex. v. 2012) , (awarding costs for both written transcripts and videos of depositions noting that "[i]n a large patent case such as this, it is common for parties to capture depositions electronica ll y so that they may be used as part of the trial presentation. These cases involve complex technical issues and the needs at trial are often not fully known until the eve of trial ." ). See also Vital v. Varco , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-1357 , 2015 WL 7740417 , at *2 J.) (concluding depositions, as that the (S.D. Tex. November 30 , costs were defendant taxable for 2015) (Rosenthal , the plaintiffs ' "reasonably expected to videotape recordings to prepare for and to try the case") use the (citing Favata v. National Oilwell Varco , L.P., Civil Action No. 2 :1 2-cv82 , 2014 WL 5822781, at *2 (S.D. Tex. November 10, 2014) (" [C]ourts in this district have often awarded deposition costs for both a written transcript and video recording when considered appropriate trial preparation under the circumstances of the particular case. Accordingly , Sunoco ' s objections to the costs that USV seeks for video depositions of Sunoco ' s witness will be overruled. -14- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 15 of 16 C. Amount of Costs to be Paid and Stay of Execution In reduced response the $36,680.80 . 32 to Sunoco ' s amount of objections, costs it & from significantly $59,404 . 63 to Because for the reasons stated in§§ II.A-B , above , the court will sustain Sunoco ' s "Digitizing seeks USV has objection to USV ' s request for Trans cript Synch ronizati on " costs totaling $1 , 330 .00, and overrule Sunoco's objection to USV's request for the cost of obtain ing video tap es amount of $35 , 350 . 80 costs for depositions of Sunoco ' s witnesses , that Sunoco will be ordered to pay USV the is ($36 , 680 . 80 - $1 , 330.00) . Because USV does not oppose Sunoco ' s request that execution of an order to pay costs be stayed until Sunoco ' s appeal is finalized , this Order to Pa y Costs will be stayed un til th irty (30) days after a mandate issues in Sunoco ' s appeal . III. Conclusions and Order For the reasons stated in§ II.A above , Sunoco ' s objection to USV's request for "Digitizing & Trans cr ipt Synchronization" cos ts totaling $1 , 330 . 00 is SUSTAINED; and for the reas ons stated in § II.B, above , Sunoco ' s objec tion to the costs that USV seeks for 32 See Defe ndant's Bill of Costs , Docket Ent ry No. 125 , and Spreadsheet , Exhibit 1 to Dodd Declaration in Support of Defendant ' s Bill of Costs , Docket Entry No . 126-1 , p. 3 (initia l request of $59 , 404 . 63) ; and Spreadsheet , Exhibit 1 to Dodd Declaration in Support of Defendant ' s Response , Docket Entry No. 129-1, p . 11 (revised request of $36 , 680 . 80) . -15- Case 4:19-cv-01145 Document 136 Filed on 06/21/22 in TXSD Page 16 of 16 video depositions of Sunoco's witness is OVERRULED. Accordingly, Plaintiff Sunoco's Objections to Defendant's Bill of Costs, Docket Entry No. 127, are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART. For the reasons explained in§ II.C, above, Sunoco is ORDERED to PAY COSTS in the amount of $35,350.80. This Order to Pay Costs is STAYED until thirty (30) days after the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues a mandate in Sunoco's appeal. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 21st day of June, 2022. ___________________________________ SIM LAKE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTR ICT JUDGE -16-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
