In Re: Scientific Atl Sec, et al v. Scientific-Atlanta, et al

Filing 478

ORDER regarding the Defendants' 459 Bill of Costs and Plaintiffs' Objections 472 to the Bill of Costs. After reviewing the submissions, the Court grants the following: Total costs are taxed against Plaintiffs in the sum of $90,607.45. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 7/6/11. (cem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

IN RE SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:01-CV-1950-RWS

ORDER
On January 19, 2011, Defendant submitted a Bill of Costs [459] along
with supporting documents [460]. Plaintiffs filed Objections [472] to the Bill of
Costs, and additional Briefs [473 and 476] have been submitted by the parties.
After reviewing the submissions, the Court enters the following Order.
The following costs are not opposed by Plaintiffs: Fees of the Clerk $450.; Deposition Costs - $26,631.51; Court Reporter Fees - $585.07; Witness
Costs - $160.00; Copy and Exemplification Costs - $53, 693.37; and Docket
Fees - $87.50. Costs in these amounts are approved by the Court.
Plaintiffs object to the following deposition costs: Realtime, rough and
ASCII copies, copies of exhibits, duplicate copies, costs of transferring video to
DVD, costs of transferring transcripts and exhibits to CD, costs of video

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

synchronization, and postage costs. In light of Plaintiffs’ objections,
Defendants have withdrawn their requests for rough ASCII copies, duplicate
copies, and postage. These requests total $8,822.45. As to the other costs to
which Plaintiffs object, the Court sustains Plaintiffs’ objections. The Court
finds that in each instance, the cost is for the convenience of counsel and not
authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The total of these additional costs is
$19,549.35. Based on the foregoing, the Court awards costs for depositionrelated fees in the amount of $26,631.51.
Plaintiffs object to a substantial portion of the copy and exemplification
costs sought by Defendants. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have failed to
adequately identify the costs in a manner that allows the Court to determine if
the costs are properly taxable under Section 1920; particularly, the charges by
Gallivan, Gallivan & O’Melia, LLC (“GGO”), the electronic-document
production vendor. Plaintiffs assert that many of these costs are associated with
electronic production of documents rather than duplication of documents.
Plaintiffs also identify specific costs of GGO that Plaintiffs contend are clearly
not taxable. Addressing Plaintiffs’ general challenge to recovery of costs
associated with an electronic-document production vendor, the Court agrees
with the conclusion in CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 676 F.
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Supp 2nd 1376 (N.D. Ga. 2009), that the services required for producing
information stored electronically differ from those required to produce
information from hard copies of documents. It is appropriate to take into
account the costs associated with these additional services in assessing costs for
exemplification and copying of materials. However, that being said, the party
seeking to recover costs for copying bears the burden of establishing
entitlement to the costs. Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Servs., Inc., 203 F.
Supp 2nd 1328, 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2002).
As support for their claim, Defendants submitted over 160 pages of
invoices from GGO. However, the Court is generally unable to discern from
the entries on the invoices whether the charges may appropriately be attributed
to copying documents. Plaintiffs isolated several categories of charges for
specific challenges. In response, Defendants have voluntarily withdrawn their
claims for privilege searches, support segregation, and blowbacks of
documents. Defs.’ Resp. Br. [473] at 14. Further, the Court finds that the
training-related costs, keyword searching costs, and home support costs
specifically challenged by Plaintiffs are not taxable. Defendants include
charges for 81 training sessions, most lasting multiple hours. Plaintiffs
challenged the necessity of this number of sessions, and Defendants failed to
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

justify them. Regarding the keyword searching, Plaintiffs argue that “[s]uch
searches are simply the ESI equivalent of having a room full of reviewers
physically review paper documents for responsive documents.” Pl.’s Opp. Br.
[472] at 21. Costs for such a review are not taxable. Because the costs for the
review are not taxable, home support for that work is, likewise, not taxable.
However, in response to Plaintiffs’ challenge to equipment rental
charges, Defendants have shown that those charges were necessary fo perform
the electronic production of documents. Def.’s Resp. Br. [473] at 13.
Therefore, the equipment rental costs of $9,000.00 are taxable.
While there may be additional costs included in the invoices that would
be taxable, the Court should not bear the burden of having to sift through over
160 pages of invoices to identify specific charges attributable to copying.
Because the Court finds that Defendants have provided inadequate information
for the Court to properly determine the taxability of the other costs of GGO,
said costs will be excluded. Based on the foregoing, copying costs shall be
taxed against Plaintiffs in the sum of $62,693.37.
Total costs are taxed against Plaintiffs in the sum of $90,607.45.

4
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

SO ORDERED, this 6th

day of July, 2011.

_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)