Shields v. Federation Internationale De Natation

Background

FINA, which changed its name to World Aquatics in January 2023, prevailed on summary judgment in the underlying antitrust and state-law litigation. The plaintiffs were Thomas A. Shields, Michael C. Andrew, Katinka Hosszú, and International Swimming League, Ltd. FINA then sought $151,976.06 in taxable costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The Clerk taxed the plaintiffs the full amount. The plaintiffs moved for district-court review of $85,181.05 in challenged costs.

The challenged categories included deposition video recordings, video-deposition setup fees, other transcript costs, remote-deposition exhibit costs, and document-reproduction and electronic-discovery costs. The opinion addresses matters in both Case No. 18-cv-07393-JSC and the related Case No. 18-cv-07394-JSC.

Legal standard

Rule 54(d) generally creates a presumption that the prevailing party receives allowable costs other than attorney’s fees. Costs must fall within the categories listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and the prevailing party must provide sufficient detail showing that the expenses were necessarily incurred and legally taxable. The court reviewed whether each expense was taxable and whether the plaintiffs gave a sufficiently persuasive reason to overcome the presumption favoring costs.

Rulings on challenged costs

Deposition video recordings. The court held that FINA could recover both written deposition transcripts and video recordings. It found the recordings necessary because many witnesses were outside the court’s subpoena power, including witnesses who lived outside the United States, and because some were nonparties who could not have been compelled to testify at trial. The fact that most videos were not introduced into the court record did not make them non-taxable.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that FINA had obtained a third copy of 20 depositions. FINA’s invoices and vendor information showed that it paid for one written transcript and one video recording per deposition. However, the court found that the price charged for 20 transcripts was unreasonably high compared with the ordinary transcript rate and reduced those deposition costs by $6,970.60, as stated in the discussion.

Video-deposition setup fees. The court allowed the $7,717.50 in “Video–Initial Service” costs. It found that the fees were mandatory charges for setting up virtual video depositions, rather than optional fees for synchronizing or editing recordings or charges for an additional copy. The plaintiffs did not provide a basis for showing that the per-deposition amounts were unreasonable.

Other transcript costs. The court reduced the “Other Transcript Costs” by $1,900, or $50 per deposition, because FINA did not adequately explain what the “Production and Processing” charge covered or why it was necessary to obtain the transcripts. The court allowed the electronic delivery and handling charges because FINA sufficiently explained that they were necessary for receiving electronic transcripts.

Remote-deposition exhibit costs. The court allowed the challenged exhibit costs. FINA’s vendor explained that the charges covered labor needed to mark, match, and quality-control electronic deposition exhibits. The court found those costs were necessary reproduction costs under the local rule.

Document production and metadata extraction. The court allowed the production fees and metadata-extraction fees. FINA showed that the expenses involved producing electronically stored information in formats and with metadata fields specified in the plaintiffs’ document requests. The court found that the claimed “Technical PM” charges involved duplicating electronic records for production, rather than non-taxable project-management or data-processing work. The plaintiffs did not substantiate their argument that the metadata charges were excessive or included non-taxable collection and processing costs.

Sealing request

FINA also asked the court to seal documents supporting its opposition to the cost-review motion because International Swimming League had designated the materials confidential under a stipulated protective order. International Swimming League, the designating party, did not file the declaration or statement required by the local rules. The court therefore denied FINA’s administrative motion to seal.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to review the Clerk’s taxation of costs. It stated that FINA could recover $143,605.46 in costs. The court denied FINA’s administrative motion to seal. Judge Jacquelyn Corley’s order disposed of the specified docket entries in both related cases.