Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC, No. 3:09-CV-00166, 2014 WL 4206205 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 25, 2014)

Key Insight: Court followed prevailing view, adopted by the Third and Fourth Circuits, that Section 1920(4) has an exceedingly narrow scope as it relates to electronic production, and tasks and associated costs of electronic discovery other than file conversion – including “preserving, processing, searching, culling and extracting ESI” – do not amount to “making copies” under the statute; court evaluated expenses charged by defendants’ counsel’s in-house electronic discovery team and defendants’ outside e-discovery vendor, disallowing various e-discovery costs and applying a 90% across-the-board reduction to account for excluded tasks and vagueness in the billing entries submitted by defendants

Nature of Case: Musician sued producers and distributors of movie and its accompanying soundtrack for trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; costs associated with electronic discovery

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.