Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp.
674 F.3d 158
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Race Tires America sued Hoosier Racing Tire Corp. and Dirt Motor Sports over Sherman Act violations related to a 'single tire rule' and exclusive tire contracts.
- Extensive electronic discovery (ESI) was produced; vendors charged hundreds of thousands of dollars for preservation, processing, searching, and producing ESI.
- The district court taxed the e-discovery costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), treating them as costs of exemplification or copying.
- DMS and Hoosier’s vendor invoices were largely non-specific, listing categories like scanning, TIFF conversion, OCR, and data processing.
- The district court awarded most e-discovery costs, concluding the activities were the electronic equivalent of exemplification/copying.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit held that only certain activities—scanning, TIFF conversion, and VHS-to-DVD transfer—qualify as 'making copies' under § 1920(4), totaling about $30,370.42, and remanded for re-taxation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1920(4) permits taxation of e-discovery costs as exemplification or copying | RTA contends all e-discovery charges were taxable as costs | Hoosier and DMS argue all e-discovery costs fall within § 1920(4) | Only copying costs are taxable; exemplification and most e-discovery services are not. |
| Whether e-discovery activities beyond copying (e.g., processing, searching, culling) can be taxed | All vendor services necessary to produce ESI should be taxable | Costs beyond copying are not authorized by § 1920(4) | Non-copying e-discovery activities are not taxable; only copying-related costs are. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 221 F.3d 449 (3d Cir.2000) (historic framing of § 1920(4) and proper scope of costs)
- Kohus v. Cosco, Inc., 282 F.3d 1355 (Fed.Cir.2002) (exemplification interpreted narrowly; video costs may be non-taxable)
- Cefalu v. Village of Elk Grove, 211 F.3d 416 (7th Cir.2000) (exemplification interpreted broadly to include illustrative aids)
- CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 654 F.3d 1353 (Fed.Cir.2011) (district court costs for e-discovery upheld then vacated upon Supreme ruling)
- In re Ricoh Co. Patent Litig., 661 F.3d 1361 (Fed.Cir.2011) (distinguishes database hosting costs; not controlling here)
- Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir.1989) (exemplification vs copying; cost-shifting not expand beyond § 1920(4))
- Crawford F. Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (U.S.1987) (limits on costs; defines scope of items recoverable under § 1920)