U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. IXL Learning, Inc.

Filing 180

ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria granting 175 Motion for Taxation of Costs. Revised costs taxed, in total, in the amount of $ 15,912.77 against Plaintiffs. (vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2019)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-02979-VC
ORDER RETAXING COSTS
Re: Dkt. No. 175

IXL LEARNING, INC.,
Defendant.
IXL’s motion for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs is granted. The bill of costs is
revised consistent with this order. In total, IXL is awarded $15,912.77, increasing the Clerk’s
initial award by $1,631.99.
1. IXL’s request for an additional $4,510.00 in costs for electronic document
management is denied. Electronic storage costs and hosting fees are not taxable. Phoenix Techs.
Ltd. v. VMWare, Inc., No. 15-CV-01414-HSG, 2018 WL 4700347, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30,
2018). IXL argues that this sum includes document production costs that are taxable. But IXL
has not provided adequate documentation for these costs, because the invoices it submitted are
not itemized and show only that it paid a flat fee for all electronic document management
services.
2. IXL requests $1,676.71 in costs for preparing exhibits for use at trial. These costs are
generally taxable, to the extent that the Court required copies to be made. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920(4); Civil L.R. 54-3(d)(3). This sum is reduced by $473.71, which reflects (1) a reduction
of $364.34, because IXL did not explain what this line-item was for or why it is taxable; (2) a
reduction of $30.60 in costs for copying a deposition for a witness who was never called at trial;

and (3) a reduction of $78.77 for unexplained fees associated with copying Duane’s deposition
transcript. The Clerk’s award is revised to add an additional $1203.00 for this category.
3. IXL’s request for $428.99 in costs associated with Jeremy Murphy’s travel expenses is
granted. IXL has submitted documentation establishing that these expenses were actually
incurred. The EEOC argues that Murphy’s airfare was not at “the most economical rate
reasonably available.” 28 U.S.C. § 1821(c)(1). But the EEOC has not shown that a lower fare
was available for the relevant dates. See MEMC Elec. Materials v. Mitsubishi Materials, No. C01-4925, 2004 WL 5361246, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2004).
4. The EEOC’s request for a further reduction of $29.00 is denied. The EEOC’s cited
authority does not establish that these costs are not taxable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2) (“A
subsistence allowance for a witness shall be paid in an amount not to exceed the maximum per
diem allowance . . . for official travel[.]”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2019
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2