Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1216

BILL OF COSTS by Google Inc.. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 7/5/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
[e-mail]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - # 184325
[e-mail]
DANIEL PURCELL - # 191424
[e-mail]
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
415 391 5400
Facsimile:
415 397 7188

KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
[e-mail]
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
[e-mail]
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER
(Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[e-mail]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

IAN C. BALLON - #141819
[e-mail]
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
[e-mail]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

13
14

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

21

Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
GOOGLE INC.’S BILL OF COSTS
Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Hon. William Alsup

GOOGLE INC.,

22

Dept.:
Judge:
Defendant.

23
24
25
26
27
28
GOOGLE INC.’S BILL OF COSTS
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
674536.01

1
2

BILL OF COSTS
Final Judgment having been entered on June 20, 2012 [Dkt. 1211] in favor of Defendant

3

Google Inc. (“Google”), as to the relief sought by Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) in this

4

litigation, the Clerk is hereby requested to tax the following as costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920

5

and Civil L.R. 54-3.

6
7
8

Fees for exemplification and the costs
of making copies of any materials
where the copies are necessarily
obtained for use in the case.

$2,900,349

9
10
11
12

Fees for printed or electronically
recorded transcripts necessarily
obtained for use in the case.

$143,341

Compensation of the court-appointed
expert.

$986,978

13
14

TOTAL

$4,030,669

15
16
17

This Bill of Costs is supported by the Declaration of Kristin Zmrhal (Exhibit A hereto), an
Itemized Bill of Costs (Exhibit B hereto), and corresponding invoices (Exhibit C hereto).

18
19
20
21
22

Dated: July 5, 2012

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
By:

23

/s/ Robert A. Van Nest
ROBERT A. VAN NEST
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

24
25
26
27
28
1

GOOGLE INC.’S BILL OF COSTS
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
674536.01

EXHIBIT A

311403.02

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
[e-mail]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - # 184325
[e-mail]
DANIEL PURCELL - # 191424
[e-mail]
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
415 391 5400
Facsimile:
415 397 7188

KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
[e-mail]
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
[e-mail]
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER
(Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[e-mail]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

IAN C. BALLON - #141819
[e-mail]
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
[e-mail]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

13
14

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
DECLARATION OF KRISTIN ZMRHAL IN
SUPPORT OF GOOGLE’S BILL OF COSTS

v.
GOOGLE INC.,

Dept.:
Judge:

Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Hon. William Alsup

Defendant.

23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KRISTIN ZMRHAL IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE’S BILL OF COSTS
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
674479.03

1
2

I, Kristin Zmrhal, declare as follows:
1.

I am a Project Manager of Discovery Support at Google Inc. (“Google”). I submit

3

this declaration in support of Google’s Bill of Costs. I managed Google’s document collection

4

and production in the above-captioned case. I have knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if

5

called to testify as a witness thereto could do so competently under oath.

6

2.

On June 20, 2012, the Court entered Final Judgment in this matter. Dkt. 1211. As

7

reflected in the Final Judgment, Google prevailed on a substantial part of the litigation. Plaintiff

8

Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) recovered none of the relief it sought in this litigation.

9

Accordingly, Google is the prevailing party and is entitled to recover costs pursuant to Fed. R.

10

Civ. P. 54(d) and 17 U.S.C. § 505.

11

3.

I have reviewed Google’s Bill of Costs and the invoices submitted therewith.

12

4.

The costs included in Google’s Bill of Costs are correctly stated and were

13

necessarily incurred in this action, and the services for which fees have been charged were

14

actually and necessarily performed. Further, the items in Google’s Bill of Costs are fairly

15

attributable to the claims asserted by Oracle in this litigation and are recoverable by Google under

16

28 U.S.C. § 1920, Civil Local Rule 54-3, and relevant case law. Parrish v. Manatt, Phelps &

17

Phillips, LLP, No. C 10-03200 WHA, 2011 WL 1362112, at *2 (N.D. Cal. April 11, 1011) (J.

18

Alsup) (“The reproduction costs defendants incurred in collecting, reviewing, and preparing client

19

documents for production were necessary expenditures made for the purpose of advancing the

20

investigation and discovery phases of the action. As such, they are properly taxable.”); Service

21

Emp. Int’l Union v. Rosselli, No. C 09-00404 WHA, 2010 WL 4502176, at *3 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 1,

22

2010) (J. Alsup) (rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that “the cost of trial exhibits and electronic

23

discovery production should not be recoverable,” and overruling plaintiffs’ objections to

24

deposition-related costs such as “‘rough disk’ fees, ‘expedited’ services charges, parking

25

reimbursements, charges for court reporter ‘waiting time,’ charges for court reporter ‘before/after

26

hours,’ delivery costs, appearance and travel fees, ‘video digitizing to DVD[s],’ and ‘video

27

synchronizing’”); In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litig., No. M 09–2029 PJH, 2012 WL

28

1414111, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“The court declines to disallow remaining costs on the grounds
1
DECLARATION OF KRISTIN ZMRHAL IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE’S BILL OF COSTS
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA

674479.03

1

argued by plaintiffs (e.g., TiFF conversion costs; copying/”blowback” costs purportedly not

2

documented; document productions purportedly not delivered; professional fees re visual aids.”));

3

Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. C 09–5939 PJH, 2012 WL 1610979, at *4

4

(N.D. Cal., May 8, 2012) (allowing recovery of costs that were “necessary to convert computer

5

data into a readable format,” because such costs were “an essential component of ‘[t]he cost of

6

reproducing disclosure or formal discovery documents’ used in the case, as permitted under Civil

7

Local Rule 54–3(d)(2).”); In re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litig., 661 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir.

8

2011) (“Thus, the costs of producing a document electronically can be recoverable under section

9

1920(4).”).

10
11
12

5.

True and correct copies of the invoices supporting Google’s Bill of Costs are

attached as Exhibit C to the Bill of Costs.
6.

The costs included in Google’s Bill of Costs for reproducing documents for use in

13

the case were necessary and related to (a) disclosure and other formal discovery obligations, (b)

14

exhibits to depositions, and (c) compensation for court-appointed experts.

15

a.

Google collected documents from over 86 custodians for this case. Google

16

delivered to its document vendor over 97 million documents for electronic processing and review.

17

Pursuant to Google’s obligations under the parties’ Joint ESI Agreement [Dkt. 67], Google’s

18

document vendor filtered custodial documents for production by running agreed-upon key-term

19

searches, and converted documents to TIFF images for production. Over the course of this

20

litigation, Oracle served nine separate Requests for Production of Documents, with 204 individual

21

document requests. Google electronically produced over 3.3 million documents in response to

22

Oracle’s requests, and Google’s 60 separate document productions span over 20 million pages.

23
24
25

b.

Sixty witnesses were deposed in this case, and several witnesses were

deposed more than once.
c.

The Court appointed Dr. James R. Kearl to serve as a Rule 706 damages

26

expert in this case. Dkt. 374. Pursuant to court-order, [Dkt. 413], Google paid one-half of Dr.

27

Kearl’s fees and expenses in this matter.

28
2
DECLARATION OF KRISTIN ZMRHAL IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE’S BILL OF COSTS
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
674479.03

1 II

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this

211
declaration was executed at

\\"~DIh'VlI~Cl1<4lll

\\\\'I\.O\S

onJuly

-?

,2012.

3

4

5

BY:I1#~Q ,
STIN Z
L

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

DECLARATION OF KRISTIN ZMRHAL IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S BILL OF COSTS
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
674479.03

EXHIBIT B

311403.02

CONDITIONALLY
FILED UNDER
SEAL

EXHIBIT C

311403.02

CONDITIONALLY
FILED UNDER
SEAL