In a December 19, 2013 opinion, Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Central Texas Airborne System Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an attorney's pro hac vice admission fees and costs associated with deposition editing and synchronization were not authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and overturned a lower court's award of these costs. (No. 13-15015, (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2013)).

After the plaintiff lost a negligence action, the defendant filed a bill of costs with the court clerk, which included, among other things, costs for:

The clerk awarded the defendant over $691,000. The plaintiff moved the district court to review the award and argued that the awards for pro hac vice admission fees were not taxable, and that the award for costs associated with the deposition were impermissible. The district court affirmed the clerk's decision but reduced the award to $622,036.38.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision with respect to the pro hac vice admission fees and deposition fees. Citing a recent Supreme Court opinion, Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., the Ninth Circuit held that because § 1920 must be construed narrowly, those costs were awarded in error. (132 S. Ct. 1997 (2012)). The court acknowledged that other Circuits have reached different results with respect to these fees, but noted those decisions did not explain their rationale and all predated Taniguchi.

The court affirmed all other costs, which included retainer and fees for graphics consultants.

Practitioners should be aware that, in the wake of Taniguchi, courts may read § 1920 narrowly and disallow costs. Practitioners in the Ninth Circuit, especially, should note that costs associated with pro hac vice admission and deposition editing and synchronization are disallowed under § 1920.