to interpret what constitutes taxable costs after Crawford [Fitting]”); SK Hand Tool Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 852 F.2d 936, 944 (7th Cir.1988) (agreeing with the Fifth Circuit and describing the court’s authority to interpret the meaning of the phrases in § 1920, despite Crawford Fitting). In West Wind, we determined that even though § 1920 does not explicitly enumerate depositions in its list of costs, courts have properly interpreted § 1920(2) providing for “fees of the court reporter” and § 1920(4) providing for “fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case” as statutorily authorizing the taxation of the costs of original deposition transcripts and copies. 834 F.2d at 1238; United States v. Kole-sar, 313 F.2d 835, 838-39 (5th Cir.1963) (<HOLDING>); see also Cengr, 135 F.3d at 454 (finding
holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding that the government is liable under the ftca in the same respect as a private person under the law of the place where the act occurred holding the cost of a deposition copy taxable against the government in an ftca case as a matter of statutory construction under  19202 holding that nurses statement made during the course of treating the plaintiff was admissible under rule 801d2d when offered against the government in ftca case holding that physicians statement during the course of treating the plaintiff was admissible under rule 801d2d when offered against the government in ftca medical malpractice case