In Re Aspartame Antitrust Litigation
2011 WL 4793239
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed multi-party antitrust complaints concerning Aspartame pricing and market allocation.
- Complaints were consolidated for litigation in the E.D. Pa.
- Court granted summary judgment against Nog and Sorbee for being time-barred and not tolled by fraudulent concealment.
- Third Circuit affirmed the summary judgment ruling on February 22, 2011.
- Clerk awarded costs to Holland Sweetener, Ajinomoto, and NutraSweet; Plaintiffs moved to deny/reduce the bills of costs.
- Court analyzes costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 within categories such as e-discovery, deposits, labeling, scanning, CDs/DVDs, and other miscellaneous costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are e-discovery costs taxable under § 1920(4) in complex antitrust litigation? | Plaintiffs argue certain e-discovery costs are not necessary. | Defendants contend e-discovery costs were necessary for efficient discovery. | Award of e-discovery costs allowed in part. |
| Whether deposition costs should include videotape costs where necessary; transcripts only otherwise? | Plaintiffs contend costs should be limited to transcripts; videotapes not always necessary. | Defendants argue videotapes may be recoverable if reasonably necessary for trial preparation. | Videotape costs allowed for Bruce Ritenberg; transcript costs allowed for Beyer/Waxler; some deductions applied. |
| Are Bates labeling and confidentiality labeling recoverable under § 1920? | Labeling costs deemed as miscellaneous or clerical and discouraging recoverability. | Labeling costs are recoverable as part of document handling where necessary. | Denied for NutraSweet and reduced in total where applicable; metadata-related costs allowed. |
| Are scanning, color scanning, and copying costs reasonable and properly itemized? | Plaintiffs argue lower per-page rates and itemization are appropriate. | Defendants defend actual incurred rates as reasonable and necessary. | Color scanning costs reduced by 50%; some color costs limited to necessary items; overall copying costs reviewed and adjusted. |
| Should miscellaneous costs (TIFF to PDF conversion, hard drives, etc.) be awarded? | Some miscellaneous costs are for counsel convenience rather than necessity. | Some miscellaneous costs are necessary for discovery and data handling. | TIFF-to-PDF conversion denied; certain hard-drive and data-management costs allowed; others denied or reduced. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 221 F.3d 449 (3d Cir. 2000) (clarifies discretionary cost award standards under 28 U.S.C. § 1920)
- James v. Norton, 176 F. Supp. 2d 385 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (reasonableness of copying costs; procedural standards for costs)
- 168th & Dodge, LP v. Rave Reviews Cinemas, LLC, 501 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirmative award of certain deposition-related costs and related discovery costs)