Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Phoenix Technologies Ltd. v. VMware, Inc., 15-cv-01414-HSG. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180523c56 Visitors: 14
Filed: May 22, 2018
Latest Update: May 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL FILING REGARDING PARTIES' REQUESTS WITH RESPECT TO COSTS Re: Dkt. No. 497 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant VMware, Inc.'s motion for review of the Clerk's taxation of costs. See Dkt. No. 497. Defendant sought $900,951.22 in its Second Amended Bill of Costs, filed September 20, 2017. Dkt. No. 483. On September 22, 2018, Plaintiff Phoenix Technologies, Ltd. objected to $708,076.10 of the costs sought by Defendant
More

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL FILING REGARDING PARTIES' REQUESTS WITH RESPECT TO COSTS

Re: Dkt. No. 497

Pending before the Court is Defendant VMware, Inc.'s motion for review of the Clerk's taxation of costs. See Dkt. No. 497.

Defendant sought $900,951.22 in its Second Amended Bill of Costs, filed September 20, 2017. Dkt. No. 483. On September 22, 2018, Plaintiff Phoenix Technologies, Ltd. objected to $708,076.10 of the costs sought by Defendant. Dkt. No. 486. The Clerk subsequently taxed costs in the amount of $187,626.44, disallowing $713,324.78 of Defendant's request. Dkt. No. 496. With its pending motion, Defendant now purports to seek $900,853.72, see Dkt. No. 497 at 2, although it later reduced the amount of its request by at least $4,883.56, see Dkt. No. 500 at 12. Plaintiff, for its part, now objects to at least $785,139.16. See Dkt. No. 499 at 1. Moreover, the parties are not always entirely clear regarding the final outcome they seek.

To assist the Court in deciding Defendant's pending motion, the Court DIRECTS the parties to meet and confer and complete the chart attached hereto as Exhibit A. The parties shall jointly submit the completed chart by May 25, 2018. Further, unless the Court directs the parties otherwise, the matter will be deemed submitted upon the parties' submission of the chart and the hearing set for May 23, 2018 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

EXHIBIT A Plaintiff's Amount Defendant's Amount claimed revised objected to by revised claim in by Defendant in Amount objection in Plaintiff in Amount allowed Motion for Second disallowed by Motion for Second by Clerk Review of Amended Bill of Clerk Review of Amended Bill of Clerk's Taxation Costs Clerk's Taxation Costs of Costs1 of Costs2 Fees of the Clerk/for Service of Process Service of Process Reporters' Transcripts Transcripts for Appeal Rulings from the Bench Depositions Deposition Transcript/Video Recording Deposition Exhibits Notary & Reporter Attendance Fees Reproduction, Exemplification Disclosure/Formal Discovery Documents Visual Aids Witness Fees & Expenses Total Court-Appointed Profs./Interpreters Interpreters Total See footnote.3

FootNotes


1. Defendant should note whether this amount is higher or lower than the amount sought in the Second Amended Bill of Costs, and provide a brief, one- to two-sentence explanation (with citation(s) to its briefing on this motion) explaining the reason for the change. If there is no change, Defendant should note that.
2. Plaintiff should note whether its objection at this stage of the litigation is higher or lower than the amount to which it objected in Defendant's Second Amended Bill of Costs, and provide a brief, one- to two-sentence explanation (with citation(s) to its brief on this motion) explaining the reason for the change. If there is no change, Plaintiff should note that.
3. Plaintiff should enter here two totals: the total amount to which it objects, and the total amount to which it believes Defendant is entitled. The sum of these numbers should equal the total amount of costs requested by Defendant in its motion.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer