Opinion
Case No. CV-05-406-S-BLW.
February 21, 2007
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will deny the motion.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Falconburg brought this action against Flying J for allegedly terminating Falconburg's employment in violation of Title VII. Falconburg alleged that Flying J demanded he sign a false statement regarding the sexual harassment of co-defendant, Melissa Cox, by a supervisor. Falconburg claims that he was fired for refusing to sign the false statement.
This Court granted Flying J's motion for summary judgment and awarded Flying J its costs as the prevailing party. Flying J filed a timely Bill of Costs in the amount of $2,197.08.
Falconburg filed an objection, claiming that the cost of Melissa Cox's original deposition, $1,129.90, should not have been included in the cost award. However, the Clerk granted the cost of the Melissa Cox's original deposition and filed a Taxation of Costs in the amount of $2,150.28. Falconburg then timely filed the pending motion for review of the Clerk's action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1); D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 54.1(d).
Costs are generally allowed to the "prevailing party" as a matter of course. See Idaho Potato Comm. v. G T Terminal Packaging, Inc., 425 F.3d 708, 723 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)). Rule 54 creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs while at the same time grants discretion to the district court to deny costs. Berkla v. Corel Corp., 302 F.3d 909, 921 (9th Cir. 2002).
The cost of a "stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case" is an element of costs authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). This statutory provision applies to deposition costs. Smith v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 22 F.3d 1432, 1439 (9th Cir. 1993).
The Court finds that Cox's deposition was necessarily obtained by Flying J for use in this case. Cox's testimony was crucial to Falconburg's claim and Flying J's defense. Even if she had not been a plaintiff in this case, Cox's deposition would need to be taken to give necessary background information.
For these reasons, the objection shall be denied.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs (Docket No. 46) is DENIED.