Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In an antitrust action against Ford Motor Co. (Ford), district court's order granting Ford's Bill of Costs is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding costs without specifically addressing each item as there is no requirement under FRCP 54 that a district court provide a detailed review or analysis of every item of cost it awards; rather, a prevailing party is presumptively entitled to recover all of its costs and plaintiff failed to offer any specific basis to rebut the presumption in favor of awarding the costs to Ford or that the award was unreasonable or unnecessary; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding costs of video depositions; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the recovery of pro hac vice fees of the clerk under 28 U.S.C. section 1920.
Submitted: June 8, 2009
Filed: September 1, 2009
Opinion by Melloy, Circuit Judge