3rebut the presumption. South Carolina is accordingly entitled to costs from both defendants anddefendant-intervenors.
Turning, then, to South Carolina’s specific request, several reductions are appropriate.First, South Carolina requests costs for fees it incurred in obtaining transcripts of depositions,hearings, and trial. The costs that may be awarded to prevailing parties are set forth in 28 U.S.C.§ 1920. See Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997, 1999-2000 (2012). Under § 1920, South Carolina is entitled to fees for transcripts “necessarily obtained for use in thecase.” See 28 U.S.C § 1920(2). The Court ordered that the parties’ briefing cite such transcripts,and they were hence necessarily obtained for use in the case. But the fees South Carolina seeksinclude charges for accelerated turnaround of the transcripts, charges to which defendants object.Transcripts are reimbursed at the court reporter’s standard rate as a matter of course. See LocalCivil Rule 54.1(d)(6), (7). Reimbursement for a higher, expedited rate may, however, be justifiedwhere the special character of the litigation necessitates such services. See, e.g., Fogleman v.ARAMCO, 920 F.2d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 1991). Considering all the circumstances of this case,including any responsibility of South Carolina for delay, the Court finds that the same day, one-day, and two-day turnaround was not necessary to the litigation. Accordingly, the added chargesfor expedition shall be excluded.South Carolina is similarly entitled to fees incurred to transcribe the audio recordings of Act R54’s legislative history, which South Carolina discovered late in the litigation. Arguing thatno costs should be awarded for the transcription, defendants point to emails in which South
Defendant-intervenors argue that no award of costs should run against them because their participation should beencouraged and because they cannot afford to pay. But “costs are routinely awarded” against an unsuccessful litigantin civil rights litigation. Long v. Howard Univ., 561 F. Supp. 2d 85, 97 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing cases). Other provisions, for instance the allowance of fees and costs if defendant-intervenors win, achieve Congress’s desiredincentives. And defendant-intervenors have failed to establish an inability to pay costs given their hefty expendituresthroughout the litigation.
!ase 1:12-cv-00203-!KK-BMK-JDB Document 316 Filed 01/04/13 Page 3 of 5