BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The Sixth Circuit has since described that change as abrogation on other grounds while continuing to apply BDT Products to deposition and imaging costs. Two courts declined its approach to particular deposition expenses, as listed below. All 34 flagged citations have been read.
34 later cases cite BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.; 34 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Abrogated
-
The Supreme Court's reading of § 1920(6) foreclosed BDT Products' allowance of written document translation as interpreter costs.
Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
The question presented in this case is whether “compensation of interpreters” covers the cost of translating documents. Because the ordinary meaning of the word “interpreter” is a person who translates orally from one language to another, we hold that “compensation of interpreters” is limited to the cost of oral translation and does not include the cost of document translation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to follow
-
The Ninth Circuit declined BDT Products' allowance of costs for synchronizing deposition video and transcripts.
Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Central Texas Airborne System Inc. · Ninth Circuit · filed
The Sixth Circuit did not provide any basis for its decision specific to transcript synchronization, and, further, the decision in BDT Products predates the Supreme Court’s decision in Taniguchi. We decline to follow the Sixth Circuit’s lead in light of the modest scope of § 1920 and the Supreme Court’s adherence to a narrow construction of the costs statute.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
A Missouri district court rejected BDT Products' allowance of both stenographic and video costs for the same deposition under its reading of the amended statute.
Cowden v. BNSF Railway Co. · E.D. Mo. · filed
That said, contrary case law exists. The Court has examined such cases and found them less persuasive than the cogent reasoning of those cited supra. For example, Plaintiff cites several out-of-circuit cases allowing for taxation of both stenographic and videographic costs. See BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc., 405 F.3d 415, 420 (6th Cir.2005), abrogated on other *1091grounds by Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1997, 182 L.Ed.2d 903 (2012);
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace