Following summary judgment, the Clerk of Court issued his Taxation of Costs which allowed for recovery of defendants’ e-discovery costs. Plaintiffs objected, arguing that such costs were not taxable pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and sought review of the issue. Following careful analysis, the court upheld the determination of the Clerk of Court.
Defendants in this antitrust case were granted summary judgment upon the court’s determination that plaintiffs failed to establish they had “sustained an antitrust injury.” Following the subsequent appeal (in which defendants prevailed), defendants each filed a Bill of Costs “in which the majority of amounts requested involve[d] e-discovery costs.” Plaintiffs objected but were overruled and the Clerk of Court thereafter issued his Taxation of Costs which allowed for defendants’ recovery of their e-discovery costs in a reduced amount. Plaintiffs
sought review.
The court first established that its review of the Taxation of Costs would be de novo and identified the relevant statute at issue, which allows assessment of costs including, “fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” The court went on to note that “[a] finding that costs incurred were ‘necessary’ to the proceedings requires more than mere assertions from the party requesting payment” and that “[t]he dividing line between ‘necessary’ and ‘for the convenience of counsel' . . . is not particularly well established.”
The court then turned to its discussion of the present case and established that at the outset of litigation the parties anticipated that “discovery would be in the form of electronically stored information (“ESI”)” and entered into a detailed Case Management Order requiring production in a specific format and according to specific parameters.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: ediscoverylaw.com
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: ediscoverylaw.com

0 comments:
Post a Comment