Tag: Taxable Costs

1
Deere & Co. v. Duroc LLC, 650 Fed. Appx. 779 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
2
In re Subpoena Am. Nurses Assoc., Nos. 15-1481, 15-1803, 2016 WL 1381352 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2016)
3
Javeler Marine Servs. LLC v. Cross, 175 F.Supp.3d 756 (S.D. Tex. 2016)
4
RG Steel Sparrows Point LLC v. Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals Inc., No. WMN-09-1668, 2016 WL 1377405 (D. Md. Apr. 7, 2016)
5
Procaps S.A. v. Patheon, Inc., NO. 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN, 2016 WL 411017 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2016)
6
Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC v. Kellog N.A. Co., No. 13 C 321, 2016 WL 316865 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2016)
7
Spear Mktg., Inc. v. Bancorpsouth Bank, No. 3:12-CV-3583-B, 2016 WL 193586 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2016)
8
Melchior v. Hilite Int?l Inc., No. 3:11-CV-3094-M (BH), 2016 WL 1165911 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2016)
9
Lab. Skin Care Inc. v. Ltd. Brands Inc., No. 06?601?LPS, 2016 WL 1266564 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2016)
10
Assoc. Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs. V. BendTec, Inc., No. 14-1602(MJD/LIB), 2016 WL 740409 (D. Minn. Feb. 24, 2016)

Deere & Co. v. Duroc LLC, 650 Fed. Appx. 779 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Key Insight: Where parties entered into an agreement that set forth parameters for production of ESI, District Court held that ?when the costs of complying with the agreement are within the obligations of the Agreement and reasonably incurred in complying with the Agreement, they are recoverable? and circuit court, on appeal, concluded that District Court acted within its discretion: ?The district court held that the e-discovery costs incurred in procedures required by the ESI Agreement are within the scope of ? 1920. Relying on the Agreement, the district court did not separate the activities required by the e-discovery Agreement. We conclude that the district acted within its discretion.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable Costs ( 28 U.S.C. ? 1920)

In re Subpoena Am. Nurses Assoc., Nos. 15-1481, 15-1803, 2016 WL 1381352 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2016)

Key Insight: Circuit Court affirmed District Court?s order shifting a third party?s attorney?s fees ?that [were] necessary to a discovery proceeding under Rule 45,? but declined to shift attorney?s fees incurred in furtherance of the motion to shift expenses where such fees were not ?not necessary to [the third party?s] compliance with the discovery order as they were incurred after discovery was completed and as a result of [the third party?s] effort to recover fees, rather than in an effort to produce discoverable material?; Circuit Court also affirmed order shifting expenses for e-Discovery services where the Magistrate Judge found that ?(1) ANA advised Appellants that producing the requested discovery would entail significant expense; (2) Appellants were dilatory in communicating with ANA after the district court ordered discovery; and (3) Appellants changed the scope of the requested discovery, increasing BIA?s charges.?

Nature of Case: Third party subpoena/ cost shifting / taxable costs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Javeler Marine Servs. LLC v. Cross, 175 F.Supp.3d 756 (S.D. Tex. 2016)

Key Insight: Addressing taxable costs, court concluded ?generally? that ?creating forensic images of Defendants? devices and conversion of the relevant imaged copies to TIFF format are within the rubric of ?making copies of any materials? under ? 1920(4) in this case, but are taxable costs only upon a showing they were ?necessarily obtained for use in the case.?? Court also held that the statute ?does not authorize taxation of expenses attributable to keyword searches.? Ultimately, the court concluded that in the present case the ?factual record? was ?insufficient? to determine the recoverable amount and ordered the submission of a revised, and more detailed, bill of costs.

Nature of Case: Claims based on alleged misappropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable Costs

RG Steel Sparrows Point LLC v. Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals Inc., No. WMN-09-1668, 2016 WL 1377405 (D. Md. Apr. 7, 2016)

Key Insight: Court rejected reasoning that ESI-related costs were recoverable because ?the parties in this case agreed ? to the form of production for ESI? and found that ?the parties? stipulation regarding the production of ESI cannot make ESI-related costs ?necessary? ? unless the costs are copying costs? which the court was unable to discern from Plaintiff?s submission and thus the court declined to tax the ESI-related costs requested; court?s analysis noted 4th Circuit precedent indicating that ?making copies for purposes of cost recovery ? is expressly limited to the cost of converting native files to non-editable formats and copying those files onto discs.?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Procaps S.A. v. Patheon, Inc., NO. 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN, 2016 WL 411017 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2016)

Key Insight: Addressing taxable costs for electronic discovery, the court acknowledged the lack of any ?on-point Eleventh Circuit law? and deemed CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 737 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ?to be the most persuasive circuit court opinion on the issue?; where even CBT Flint Partners LLC did not address costs related to OCR, however, the court indicated it would ?follow the fundamental principle that the costs statute is ?modest? and ?narrow? and ?limited to minor, incidental expenses? and excluded OCR costs from Defendant?s costs request

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs for electronic discovery

Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC v. Kellog N.A. Co., No. 13 C 321, 2016 WL 316865 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2016)

Key Insight: Court declined to allow costs for OCR, ?concordance hosting,? ??volume mastering,? ?unitization,? ?document imaging,? ?CD duplication,? and ?media formatting,?? but did allow costs associated with TIFF and PDF conversion

Nature of Case: Patent

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable Costs related to e-Discovery

Melchior v. Hilite Int?l Inc., No. 3:11-CV-3094-M (BH), 2016 WL 1165911 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2016)

Key Insight: Defendant objected to portion of Plaintiff?s bill of costs for electronic data processing, document conversion, exhibit stamping and copy charges. The court sustained Defendant?s objection relating to costs for (i) ?hosting fees, user fees and other miscellaneous database charges? (outside the scope of ?copying or scanning materials?); (ii) converting ESI documents to TIFF format (parties agreed to produce as either native or TIFF files – ?[b]ecause any conversion of the electronic files was the choice of each party,? the conversion was not ?necessarily obtained for use in the case?); (ii) exhibit stamps (not taxable under 1920(4)); (iv) building an electronic database (?steps leading up to the process of copying? do not fall under copying); (v) Plaintiff?s conversion of documents produced to him by the Defendant (?not necessarily obtained?); and (vi) costs of printing electronic documents to paper (for Plaintiff?s convenience rather than necessary). Plaintiff?s recoverable amount was reduced accordingly.

Nature of Case: Taxable costs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lab. Skin Care Inc. v. Ltd. Brands Inc., No. 06?601?LPS, 2016 WL 1266564 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2016)

Key Insight: Defendants sought to recover costs incurred to scan and convert paper documents into electronic format, Bates stamp and print the documents they produced; as well as costs for taking corporate representative depositions. Plaintiffs objected ?on the basis that more than two-thirds of the production costs?are the costs of making electronic copies and extra paper copies of documents for [Defendants?] own use.? The court found Defendants costs were incurred in order to comply with the production of ESI, and that costs for Bates stamping was ?reasonable and necessary? – as Defendants pointed out ?producing 125,517 pages?without a single identifying number would render such production entirely useless.? Also, Defendants provided sufficient supporting evidence for the costs incurred in making copies of the produced documents. The court granted Defendants? request for costs. Plaintiffs argued the Clerk of Court?s finding that Defendants failed to meet the requirements of Local Rule 54.1(b)(3) regarding deposition costs was correct. This court indicated 28 U.S.C. ? 1920 provides the ?outer bounds? of a courts? discretion in awarding costs, citing the Third Circuit ?deposition expenses, including the costs of deposition transcripts, may be awarded as costs to the prevailing party if the court determines, at the end of the litigation, that the copies were of papers necessary for use in the case.? Finding Defendants? deposition and transcripts were ?at least ?reasonably necessary? as part of their efforts to effectively litigate this patent case,? the court granted Defendant?s request.

Nature of Case: Taxable costs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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