WHOA! A Prevailing Party Recovered $57,873.61 in eDiscovery Costs!

Rule 54 working in conjunction with U.S.C. 1920 can be a powerful tool when appropriately used. Rule 54 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure suggests, “(1) cost—other than attorney’s
fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” What is considered to be “cost” under rule 54 is further defined by U.S.C. 1920, “A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as cost of the following . . . .

Bow Tie Law's Blog

thumb-456698_1280My God, is it true? Did a Prevailing Party recovered virtually all of their eDiscovery costs?

The answer is yes, thanks to a case in Colorado.

United States District Judge Christine M. Arguello opened her order denying the Plaintiff’s motion to review the clerk’s taxation of costs with the following:

Because Defendants’ costs related to the electronically stored information (“ESI”) are expenses enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), and Plaintiffs were aware that Defendants would have to retain an outside consultant to retrieve and convert the ESI into a retrievable format, Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied.

Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Ctr. v. Leslea, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17878, 1.

Rock on. Let’s review the Court’s reasoning.

The Plaintiff took the position that the Defendants’ eDiscovery cost award be reduced from $57,873.61 to $2,387.03, striking the work of a third-party eDiscovery service provider who performed the “retrieving, restoring, and converting data,” on the…

View original post 408 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s