George Hammersmith, Inc., an Oregon Corporation v. Taco Bell Corp., a California Corporation

967 F.2d 586 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. GEORGE HAMMERSMITH, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TACO BELL CORP., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-35188. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 8, 1992. * Decided June 22, 1992. 1 Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, GOODWIN, Circuit Judge, and LEVI, District Judge. ** 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Appellant George Hammersmith, Inc. asserts that the district court erred in awarding defendant costs in the amount of $19,852.77. We affirm. 4 A district court's award of costs is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice Cream, 920 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir.1990). 5 Hammersmith asserts that the district court miscalculated the amounts it disallowed from the requested award and erred in awarding costs of printing and for copies of discovery documents. As to the claim of miscalculation, we find that the district court correctly calculated…