the parties’ counsel are also not taxable. See Embotelladora Agral Regiomontana, S.A. de C.V. v. Sharp Capital, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 415, 418 (N.D.Tex.1997) (“[T]ravel expenses of attorneys are not recoverable under § 1920.”). As to the travel expenses of the remaining two individuals, Ms. Hunt and Ms. Smith, Defendant’s Bill of Costs does not identify these individuals’ involvement with the case. The Court notes, however, that under Local Rule 54.1(c), the only travel expenses that are authorized taxable costs are those travel costs incurred by necessary witnesses. N.C.M.D. Local R. 54.1(c)(l)(iii). As Defendant has not indicated that Ms. Hunt and Ms. Smith were necessary witnesses to the case, the Court finds that these expenses are not tax icago, 38 F.3d 1429, 1440-41 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. Unisys Corp., 54 F.3d 624, 633 (10th
holding that courier and messenger costs are not taxable costs holding that attorneys fees would include expenses for computerized legal research and thus not allowing computerized legal research as a separate taxable cost holding that the costs of computerized research should be characterized not as taxable costs but as attorneys fees holding that the costs of computerized research was a component of attorneys fees that cannot be independently taxed as an item of cost holding that lexis fees are not taxable as costs but reserving ruling on whether such fees are recoverable as attorneys fees