Endodontics attempts to avoid its failure to comply with the local rule by arguing that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 provides an “alternative” basis for recovering its transcription costs. Motion at 1. Section 1920 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides: “A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the ... [flees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.... ” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). The Defendants respond that the local rule limits the Court’s statutory authority. Opinions from this District have divided whether D.N.M.LR-Civ. 54.2 and § 1920 should be read together or as alternatives to each other. Compare Neito v. Kapoor, No. CIV 96-1225 MV/JHG, Memorandum Opinion and Order at 4 (D.N.M. June 12, 2001)(Doc. 397)(<HOLDING>), with Martinez v. Co2 Services, Inc., No. CIV
holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction   depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc  1330a and proper service under 28 usc  1608 recognizing the supreme courts precept that district courts may decline to tax costs enumerated in  1920 but cannot award costs not enumerated under  1920 citing crawford fitting 482 us at 44245107 sct 2494 holding that a party can recover costs under either dnmlrciv 542 or 28 usc  1920 holding that  1920 does not authorize taxing mediation fees as costs holding that section 1132gls allowance for costs of action empowers courts to award only the types of costs allowed by 28 usc  1920 and only in the amounts allowed by section 1920 itself by 28 usc  1821 or by similar such provisions