Blogs

GUEST BLOG: eDiscovery Copying Costs Not Recovered

12.20.13

BARRY BARNETT GUEST BLOGGER

Barry Barnett has been a Guest Blogger in the past, his Blawgletter provides great thoughts, and insights. I read his blogs regularly. Over the years Barry and I have had a number of cases together and he is an outstanding trial partner at Susman Godfrey.

Barry Barnett

 

Winner Has to Pay Bulk of Its Own E-Discovery Costs, Federal Circuit Says

The expense of a big document case lies mainly in the looking for, the sifting through, and the analysis of your client’s, and the other side’s, megabytes and terabytes of ESI — “electronically stored information”, in the words of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

You’d like to shift that burden to your opponent, right? You think you should have a right to do that if you’ve won, correct? You suspect that the Constitution, perhaps something in penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights, entitles you to tack that on to the honking loss you just tattoed across your adversary’s forehead, huh?

Dream on, the Federal Circuit ruled on Friday the 13th.

The panel held that 28 U.S.C 1920 limits the taxing of those court costs that concern ESI to the expense of “making copies”. Nothing but copy-making. Although the court did allow that you can get the extra dollars you spent on making fancy copies if the losing side asked you for the info that made fancy stuff (e.g., imaging) necessary. CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., No. 13-1036 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2013).

The case involved a patent infringement claim that the plaintiff CBT lost on summary judgment. The district court had ruled the patent invalid for indefiniteness and then awarded the defendants Return Path and Cisco more than $300,000 in e-discovery “costs”. The Federal Circuit vacated the award and sent the case back. The opinion brims with advice on what ESI expenses count as section 1920 costs and which don’t. Blawgletter says check it out.

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.

Operators

AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top