Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sca Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC

United States District Court, Sixth Circuit

November 5, 2013

SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS AKTIEBOLAG and SCA PERSONAL CARE, INC. Plaintiffs,
v.
FIRST QUALITY BABY PRODUCTS, LLC, FIRST QUALITY HYGIENIC, INC., FIRST QUALITY PRODUCTS, INC., and FIRST QUALITY RETAIL SERVICES, LLC Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOSEPH H. McKINLEY, Jr., Chief District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a bill of costs and a revised bill of cost submitted by Defendants First Quality Baby Products, LLC, First Quality Hygienic, Inc., First Quality Products, Inc., and First Quality Retail Services, LLC requesting the Court to tax costs in the amount of $140, 625.96 against the Plaintiffs, SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag and SCA Personal Care, Inc., [DN 123, DN 131] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Plaintiffs have filed objections to Defendants' bill of costs [DN 126, DN 132]. Fully briefed, these matters are ripe for decision.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) "creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs, but allows denial of costs at the discretion of the trial court." White & White, Inc. v. American Hosp. Supply Corp. , 786 F.2d 728, 730 (6th Cir. 1986). See Ford v. FedEx Supply Chain Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 1585849, *1 (W.D. Tenn. June 3, 2009) ("There is "a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party in accordance with Rule 54(d)."). Therefore, "[t]he party objecting to the taxation bears the burden of persuading the Court that taxation is improper." Roll v. Bowling Green Metal Forming, LLC. , 2010 WL 3069106, *2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 4, 2010) (citing BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc. , 405 F.3d 415, 420 (6th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Taniguchi v. Kan.Pacific Saipan, Ltd. , 132 S.Ct. 1997, 2007 (2012)). In Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc. , 482 U.S. 437 (1987), the Supreme Court held that a district court may award costs only for those elements contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which provides:

A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:

(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.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Fees for Printed or Electronically Recorded Transcripts

Defendants seek to recover $42, 842.85 as costs for fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts obtained for use in this case. Deposition expenses are generally taxed as costs under §1920. Sales v. Marshall , 873 F.2d 115, 120 (6th Cir. 1989). However, "not all of the costs associated with these depositions are taxable." Charboneau v. Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. , 2006 WL 897131, *3 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2006). Plaintiffs object to the requested costs on the grounds that the costs are excessive or that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.