With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Olga’s Kitchen of Hayward, Inc. v. Papo, 108 F.R.D. 695, 712 (E.D.Mich.1985), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 815 F.2d 79 (6th Cir.1987); Principe v. McDonald’s Corp., 95 F.R.D. 34, 37 (E.D.Va.1982) (allowing cost of duplicating exhibits for each juror). Having decided that duplication of trial exhibits in general is taxable, we now turn to the question of whether all five copies made for use by the parties and the court are compensable, or whether, as Hawk contends, only the court’s copy is taxable. We have already noted the Seventh Circuit’s rejection of a bright line rule allowing taxation of only the court’s copy of papers in favor of a more flexible rule under which compensability depends upon the use of the copies. See, Arachnid, 143 F.R.D. at 193; EEOC v. Sears, 114 F.R.D. at 625 (<HOLDING>). We agree with the Arachnid court’s holding

A: recognizing that rule 45 can be used to subpoena documents to be introduced at trial as trial exhibits but rejecting plaintiffs argument that documents sought after the discovery cutoff were for use as trial exhibits where the scope of the request is broad and clearly is designed for discovery not lastminute trial needs such as for originals of documents where copies were produced in discovery and there is a need for the original at trial
B: recognizing independence tube rule that extra copies are not taxable court allows taxation of six copies of deposition transcripts trial exhibits etc
C: holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal
D: recognizing that items prohibited from taxation under the nevada constitution are not taxable under nrs chapter 372
B.