RYA W. ZOBEL, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Perrigo Company and L. Perrigo Company ("defendants") filed a Bill of Costs seeking $90,637.02 from Brigham and Women's Hospital, Inc. and Investors Bio-Tech, LLP ("plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs object to all but $2,357 of these costs, which they say is nonetheless offset by expert witness fees owed to them by defendants.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the court may award "costs" to a prevailing party. Those costs are identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and include:
Within these statutory boundaries, the court retains broad discretion to "shape[ ] the contours" of a prevailing party's award.
Following an eight-day trial in December 2016 in this patent infringement action, a jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs. It found that the asserted claims of the patent were valid, that defendants' product infringed each asserted claim, and that such infringement was willful. However, on defendants' motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), I determined that plaintiffs had failed to present sufficient evidence of direct infringement and that, accordingly, "no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict" in their favor.
Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that this case should be treated as one of "mixed results" and that costs should be awarded to the party who "carried the day" at each stage of the case.
Defendants first request $900 for pro hac vice motion fees. Courts in this district generally do not allow parties to recover these costs,
Defendants originally sought $1,979 in fees for service of summonses and subpoenas, but both parties have since agreed that only a portion of that sum is recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1). Accordingly, defendants' request for Fees of the Marshal is allowed in the agreed amount of $780.
Next, defendants ask for $40,323.61 under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). This amount includes the cost of seventeen deposition transcripts, transcripts of the pretrial conference and the trial, as well as "video sync" services and videotape copies of three depositions. For the following reasons, defendants' request is allowed in the amount of $13,764.07, which includes $9,495.40 for deposition transcripts and $4,268.67 for pretrial conference and trial transcripts.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2), "[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
Transcripts of the depositions of Dr. William Steinberg, Laura Donnelly, and Valerie Gallagher were either introduced as evidence or otherwise made part of the trial record. Accordingly, their costs are taxable in the amounts of $532, $1,045, and $499.40, respectively.
Defendants are also due costs for any transcripts used for cross-examination or impeachment at trial. Those include the deposition transcripts of Stephen Byrn ($1,619.25); Dr. Michael Wolfe ($3,143.50); Phillip Green ($1,126.25); and Harry Barnett($1,530).
Defendants relied on the pretrial conference transcript and the trial transcripts for their successful post-trial briefing. Accordingly, defendants may recover the cost of the pretrial conference transcript ($163.59) and the trial transcript ($4,105.08).
However, defendants' requested $3,458.70 in trial realtime fees is disallowed. Realtime transmission is "highly convenient and desirable," but such costs were not "necessarily" incurred within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), defendants request $39,560.86 for copies and exemplification expenses. This sum includes a whopping $35,298 for the "design of charts, figures, and demonstratives used during trial" by a graphic designer and $4,262.86 for the printing of trial demonstratives and exhibits. Docket # 383-4 at 2.
Given the lack of evidence to support the necessity of a graphic designer and the significant number of hours allegedly spent by the designer preparing demonstratives, the requested $35,298 is disallowed.
Defendants may, however, recover $4,262.86 in printing costs. Those costs are supported by a detailed invoice, Docket # 383-4 at 7, fall squarely within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), and are not excessive.
Lastly, defendants' Bill of Costs includes $7,873.55 in witness attendance fees, travel expenses, and subsistence allowances, of which $4,036.55 is allowed.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b), a witness shall be paid an attendance fee of $40 "per day for each day's attendance" and for "the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from the place of attendance." Dr. Gary Annunziata, Dr. Anthony Tornay, and Lisa Cameron each testified for one day and, accordingly, defendants' requested $120 in attendance fees is allowed.
Defendants shall also receive the requested $1,174.95 for Dr. Gary Annunziata's flights and $1,580.60 for Dr. Anthony Tornay's flights and cab fares. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1821(c)(1) and (c)(3), a witness's travel expenses via common carrier are recoverable, as are taxicab fares between places of lodging and carrier terminals. Although defendants did not provide actual airline or taxi receipts, the invoices from Dr. Gary Annunziata and Dr. Anthony Tornay are acceptable as "other evidence of actual cost" to defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1821 (c)(1).
Defendants next calculate a taxable amount of $4,998 in subsistence expenses for Dr. Gary Annunziata and Dr. Anthony Tornay. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1821(d), defendants may recover a daily subsistence allowance for each witness up to the maximum per diem rate for official travel by federal employees. At the time of trial, these rates for Boston, Massachusetts were $204 per night for lodging, and $69 per full day and $51.75 per travel day for meals and Incidentals.
While there is no statutory requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1821(c) that a party provide meal and lodging receipts to obtain a subsistence allowance, courts in this district require such supporting documentation.
In light of the lack of supporting receipts and the fact that each witness only testified for one day, it is reasonable to limit the subsistence allowance to $1,161, which includes for each witness: two lodging nights ($204 per night); one full meal day ($69), and two travel meal days ($51.75).
In the opposition and reply briefs, the parties introduce a separate dispute— unrelated to the pending Bill of Costs—over expert deposition fees allegedly due under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E).
Expert discovery concluded in May 2016 and, in the intervening three years, neither party filed a motion to recover such fees. Any request for fees at this stage is unreasonable and untimely.
For the foregoing reasons, and as summarized in the table below, defendants are entitled to recover $22,843.48 of their costs from plaintiffs. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Summary of Costs A. Clerk Fees $0.00B. Marshal Fees $780.00C. Transcript and Video Fees i. Deposition Transcripts $9,495.40 ii. Pretrial Conference and Trial Transcripts: $4,268.67D. Copies and Exemplification Fees $4,262.86E. Witness Fees i. Attendance Fees $120.00 ii. Travel Expenses $2,755.55 iii. Subsistence Allowances $1,161.00Total $22,843.48