Kalitta Air v. Cent. Texas Airborne Sys.

28 U.S.C. § 1920 does not allow the district court to award costs for pro hac vice fees as taxable costs, nor does it authorize costs of deposition editing and synchronizing, but the district court is allowed to award costs for graphics consultants.

This case came to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on appeal by Kalitta Air L.L.C. (“Kalitta”) regarding the district court’s award of $622,036.38 in costs to Central Texas Airborne System Inc. (“CTAS”). Kalitta filed a lawsuit against CTAS alleging negligence, and the district court entered judgment for CTAS, awarding CTAS costs of $355,370. After a verdict was reached in favor of CTAS during a third trial in which Kalitta again alleged negligence on the part of CTAS, CTAS filed a bill of costs in the amount of $724,021.37. Kalitta objected, but CTAS was still awarded $691,591.73. Kalitta moved for review of the costs awarded, and the district court found that some of the costs were awarded in error, subsequently reducing the award to $622,036.38. The district court’s award of costs was reviewed for abuse of discretion and whether the district court had the authority to award costs. CTAS’s bill of costs included expenses for pro hac vice admission fees, deposition editing, and graphics consultants. 28 U.S.C. § 1920 does not allow for the award of costs for pro hac vice fees as taxable costs and does not authorize costs of deposition editing and synchronizing. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court’s award of costs for the pro hac vice admission of CTAS’s counsel and award of costs for editing and synchronizing deposition videotapes. However, the panel affirmed the district court’s award of costs regarding graphics consultants. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.