Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc.
891 F. Supp. 2d 803
E.D. Tex.2012Background
- This is a Bill of Costs order under FRCP 54(d) addressing costs recoverable under 28 U.S.C. §1920.
- Eolas objects to several of Defendants’ proposed costs, including video depositions and electronic discovery costs.
- The court analyzes whether amended §1920(2) permits video deposition costs and whether §1920(4) permits various electronic discovery costs.
- The court holds that costs may include both printed and electronically recorded transcripts when necessarily obtained.
- The court limits or disallows certain electronic discovery costs (collection, processing, hosting, and conversion) and partially permits photocopy, CD/DVD, and demonstrative costs, then orders a resubmission of an agreed Bill of Costs.
- The decision remarks on disparities in production-related costs among defendants and references a forthcoming local ESI order and TIFF vs native production considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether video deposition costs are recoverable under §1920(2). | Eolas: standing order bars video deposition costs; pre-2008 law. | Defendants: amended §1920(2) allows electronically recorded transcripts; both transcript types allowed. | Video deposition costs are recoverable if necessarily obtained; both transcript types allowed. |
| Scope of electronic discovery costs recoverable under §1920(4). | Cost items like collection/processing/hosting should be disallowed. | Some electronic discovery tasks are recoverable as copying costs; others are not. | Document scanning allowed; collection/processing/hosting not recoverable; TIFF/native conversion not recoverable when not necessary. |
| Photocopies and CD/DVD copies recoverability and granularity of charges. | Charges lack detail to show necessity. | Some detailed charges justified; general charges require partial allowance. | 50% of general copying; 100% of detailed copying; same for CD/DVD copies. |
| Allowance for graphics and demonstratives at trial. | Not explicitly contested beyond standard costs. | Costs for multimedia support excessive. | $82,000 for multimedia reasonable; rest disallowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1987) (statutory cost-limitation authority under §1920; prevailing party entitled to costs but limited by statute)
- Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012) (relevant interpretation of copying costs under amended §1920(4) in electronic discovery context)
- S & D Trading Academy, LLC v. AAFIS, Inc., 336 Fed.Appx. 443 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished guidance on the impact of the 2008 amendment to §1920(2) and (4))