Tag:Taxable Costs

Key Insight: Court affirmed recovery of defendants? e-discovery costs pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1920(4) following substantial analysis of the issue and a determination that the services paid for were necessary to retrieve and prepare the ESI for production and were an ?indispensible part of the discovery process? and where the costs requested, as reduced by the Clerk of Court, were reasonable

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1920(4), court awarded the prevailing party $11,675.00 ?for the technical, specialized services necessary for responses to B&B?s request for electronically stored information? noting that B&B?s requests required defendant to extract 150 gigabytes of raw data for ten custodians which required additional processing and review and concluding that? [g]iven the extensive e-discovery that Fastenal was required to conduct, the Court in these circumstances finds that allowing a prevailing party to recover the costs of providing ESI where the opposing party requested that responsive documents be produced in certain electronic formats is appropriate.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: Addressing ?costs related to electronic scanning and imaging of documents,? court noted that defendants provided no authority recognizing that such expenditures were taxable pursuant to ? 1920 and thus declined to award them

Nature of Case: Copyright Infringement

Key Insight: Court addressed defendants? request for ?costs for utilizing the expertise of computer technicians in unearthing the vast amount of computerized data sought by Plaintiffs in discovery? and reasoned that ?[c]ourts have found that costs such as those sought by Defendants are recoverable under ? 1920(4)? and that defendants costs were not incurred for mere convenience but rather were ?necessarily incurred in responding to Plaintiffs? discovery requests? and concluded the costs were reasonable; the court found the request to be moot, however, where defendants sought costs ?only to the extent Plaintiffs receive attorneys fees? and no such fees were awarded

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Key Insight: Court approved recovery of costs for expenses Defendants incurred for document scanning or imaging given that the parties agreed Defendants would produce documents in electronic format. The Court declined to allow recovery of costs for services and products other than the reproduction of documents such as Bates labeling, OCR formatting, CD creation, CD archival and PDF to TIFF Conversion stating that although such services and products assist in document review, they ?extend beyond mere copying and were unnecessary.?

Nature of Case: Taxable Costs

Key Insight: Regarding recovery of costs for electronic discovery, court acknowledged that it was ?undisputable that electronic discovery costs are available under Section 1920(4)? but that there was ?scant legal authority? providing guidance on the matter and noted that it was difficult for the court to determine the reasonableness of the costs at issue and thus awarded half of the requested costs equaling $35,292.56

Nature of Case: Lanham Act: False Advertising

Electronic Data Involved: Costs

Key Insight: Acknowledging that expenses related to imaging and creating electronic versions of documents are taxable when the parties have agreed to produce documents electronically, the court denied defendant?s request for recovery of such funds absent evidence that the parties agreed to electronic production; court denied recovery of expenditure for converting plaintiff?s QuickBooks database into a usable format because such costs are not recoverable

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, QuickBooks database

Key Insight: Addressing the question of whether document imaging costs were recoverable under 28 USC ? 1920, court noted that ?[t]oday?s technologies allow counsel to exchange ?copies? of [documents for use in the case] electronically, reducing time and cost? and that there was no indication that electronic production was more expensive or duplicative of hard copy costs, and held that it ?would not punish [plaintiff] for choosing the more efficient, electronic method of producing costs? and that plaintiff?s document imaging costs were therefore recoverable under the statute

Nature of Case: Claims arising from property damage resulting from Hurrican Katrina

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to plaintiff?s bill of costs including costs for data extraction and storage by a third party vendor, court stated that the ?steps that KBR had the third-party vendor perform do not appear to be electronic equivalents of exemplification and copying? , held that the costs were not within the ??exemplification and copying? category of ? 1920? and thus upheld defendant?s objection to those costs

Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment related to a series of contracts for fuled transport overseas

Electronic Data Involved: Extraction and storage costs of ESI

Key Insight: Court denied defendants’ motion for taxation of e-discovery costs amounting to $150,000 where defendant retained an outside firm to handle collections but failed to show the costs were “reasonable costs” pursuant to U.S.C ? 1920(4); court noted that “[i]n a non-electronic document case this work would be performed by paralegals and associate attorneys and would not be compensable under 28 U.S.C. ? 1920.”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI