In Re Sony PS3 "Other OS" Litigation

Filing 187

BILL OF COSTS by Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Carter Ott in Support of Defendant's Bill of Costs, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Ott, Carter) (Filed on 12/22/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LUANNE SACKS, Bar No. 120811 luanne.sacks@dlapiper.com CARTER W. OTT, Bar No. 221660 carter.ott@dlapiper.com DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415.836.2500 Fax: 415.836.2501 JOSEPH COLLINS Appearing Pro Hac Vice joseph.collins@dlapiper.com DLA PIPER LLP (US) 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: 312.368.4000 Fax: 312.236.7516 Attorneys for Defendant SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 16 17 18 In re SONY PS3 “OTHER OS” LITIGATION 19 20 CASE NO. 3:10-CV-01811-RS DECLARATION OF CARTER OTT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S BILL OF COSTS 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- DLA P IPER LLP (US) SAN FRANCISCO WEST\228467463.1 DECL. OF CARTER OTT ISO BILL OF COSTS CASE NO. 3:10-CV-01811-RS 1 I, Carter Ott, hereby declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of California and authorized 3 to practice before this Court. I am an associate with the law firm of DLA Piper LLP (US), 4 counsel for defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. (“SCEA”) in the above- 5 captioned action. I have personal knowledge of the matters contained herein and, if called as a 6 witness, I could and would competently testify as follows. 2. 7 A judgment was entered in this case in favor of SCEA on December 8, 2011. On 8 this basis, SCEA is seeking to recover costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) 9 and Local Rule 54-1. 10 3. This declaration is offered in support of SCEA’s Bill of Costs. 11 4. The information contained in this declaration and the attached exhibits is produced 12 from records kept in the regular course of business by DLA Piper LLP. It is the regular practice 13 of DLA to make and keep its own records, and to retain copies of vendor invoices for our files. I 14 am familiar with DLA’s billing system, and I am responsible for overseeing the billing of fees 15 and costs at DLA relating to the above-captioned matter. The records I have examined are in the 16 care, custody or control of DLA, and are complete, accurate, and correct to the best of my 17 knowledge. 5. 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1924, I have reviewed the Bill of Costs submitted on 19 behalf of SCEA by DLA. With respect to costs under DLA’s control, all items are correct and 20 were necessarily incurred by SCEA in the above-captioned matter. 21 6. SCEA is seeking $72,311.52 in costs. 22 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a description of the fee paid to the Clerk of the 23 U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, and a true and correct copy of the docket 24 supporting payment of that fee. This cost was actually and necessarily incurred by SCEA in this 25 action. 26 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is an itemization of the fees for printed or 27 electronically-recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case, and true and correct 28 copies of the invoices supporting those expenses. These costs were actually and necessarily -2- DLA P IPER LLP (US) SAN FRANCISCO WEST\228467463.1 DECL. OF CARTER OTT ISO BILL OF COSTS CASE NO. 3:10-CV-01811-RS 1 2 incurred by SCEA while represented by DLA in this action. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is an itemization of the fees and disbursements for 3 printing that were actually and necessarily incurred by SCEA while represented by DLA in this 4 action, and true and correct copies of the invoices supporting those expenses. 5 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is an itemization of the fees for exemplification and 6 the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies were necessarily obtained for use in 7 the case, and true and correct copies of the invoices supporting those expenses. Among these 8 costs are Discovery Specialist fees associated with the collection and processing of SCEA’s 9 electronically stored information (“ESI”) pursuant to plaintiffs’ discovery requests and the 10 parties’ negotiation of a production protocol (see Docket # 184), processing the collected data, 11 creating a database containing that data for review, executing agreed-upon keyword term filters 12 against that data, and creating document productions, including generation of tiff images and the 13 creation of load files with specified parameters. These costs also include monthly storage fees for 14 the housing of the collected ESI database for review and production. These costs were actually 15 and necessarily incurred by SCEA while represented by DLA in this action. 16 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is an itemization of other costs actually and 17 necessarily incurred by SCEA while represented by DLA in this action, and true and correct 18 copies of the invoices supporting those expenses. Among these are costs associated with delivery 19 of chambers copies of case papers and expedited service of case papers to opposing counsel, and 20 SCEA’s share of costs expended for mediation at JAMS. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this declaration is executed on 23 December 22, 2011 at Sacramento, California. 24 /s/ Carter Ott CARTER OTT 25 26 27 28 -3- DLA P IPER LLP (US) SAN FRANCISCO WEST\228467463.1 DECL. OF CARTER OTT ISO BILL OF COSTS CASE NO. 3:10-CV-01811-RS

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?