United States Fire Insurance Company et al v. Icicle Seafoods Inc et al
Filing
168
ORDER granting Defendants' 163 Motion to Retax. The Clerk's Taxation of Costs, Dkt. # 162 , shall be reduced by $22,911.37. Costs are now taxed at $3,186.06. This replaces the amount taxed in the Clerk's prior Order at Dkt. # 162 . Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)
Case 2:20-cv-00401-RSM Document 168 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. C20-401-RSM
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO RETAX
v.
ICICLE SEAFOODS, INC., et al,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Retax Pursuant to LCR
17
18
54(d)(4). Dkt. #163. On January 31, 2022, the Clerk of Court ordered the taxation of costs in
19
this matter in the amount of $27,709.23.
20
inappropriately taxed $26,434.77 under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) for “[f]ees for exemplification and
21
the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in
22
23
24
Dkt. #162.
Defendants argue that the Clerk
the case.” Defendants ask that the Court reduce the amount taxed in this category because
“Insurers failed to establish that $22,911.37 of the costs they seek for “EDD: Native ESI
25
Pocessing” are taxable under § 1920(4). Initially, Insurers’ electronic discovery vendor, Empire
26
Discovery, submitted a declaration describing the costs in the “EDD: Native ESI Processing,”
27
category as “native electronically stored information (ESI) processing with full metadata
28
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAX - 1
Case 2:20-cv-00401-RSM Document 168 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
extraction.” Dkt. #151 at 2–4. For the invoices on which these charges appeared, the vendor
stated that these tasks were performed for:
(1) ESI native digital file documents that Empire Discovery received from Insurers and
processed for purposes of deduplication, extracting text and metadata for attorney review
in the document review platform. Dkt. 151 at 2 (invoices dated 3/31/21 and 4/30/21).
(2) ESI documents produced by Icicle Seafoods in discovery that Empire Discovery
processed for Insurers for purposes of converting the ESI documents into fully searchable
PDF imaged documents, because Icicle’s ESI documents contained no metadata as
needed for searches in the Relativity e-discovery platform utilized by Insurers in this case.
Id. at 3 (invoice dated 6/30/21).
11
(3) ESI documents produced by Icicle Seafoods in discovery that Empire Discovery
processed for Insurers for purposes of converting the ESI documents into fully searchable
PDF imaged documents, including the extraction of all metadata. Id. at 4 (invoice dated
7/31/21).
12
Defendants objected to the costs described above under § 1920(4) for lack of specificity and for
10
13
14
15
being outside the scope of recoverable costs. In response, the vendor submitted a supplemental
declaration on January 21, 2022, stating that “Native ESI Processing” included tasks such as (1)
16
“de-duplicating native ESI files; (2) “fully extracting all metadata”; and (3) “converting all TIFF
17
files and non-extractable text documents on which OCR was performed to searchable PDF files.”
18
Dkt. #161 at ¶ 3. The vendor also added that the “although the ESI processing services provided
19
by Empire allowed Insurers’ counsel to review the ESI documents on the Relativity platform for
20
21
22
responsiveness or privilege, the ‘Native ESI Processing’ charges did not include attorney review
or database access or hosting fees.” Id.
23
Defendants make multiple arguments for why “even with the supplemental declaration
24
from the vendor, Insurers still fail to adequately describe the services in this category to permit a
25
determination of whether the costs actually fall within the narrow scope of taxable costs under §
26
27
28
1920(4).” Dkt.#163 at 9. The Court is particularly concerned with Defendants’ argument that
Insurers suggest they are “seeking costs for processing all the documents that were uploaded to
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAX - 2
Case 2:20-cv-00401-RSM Document 168 Filed 08/25/22 Page 3 of 6
1
their review platform, rather than the subset of documents that were actually produced” based on
2
the vendor’s statement that the costs for “EDD: Native ESI processing” were incurred, at least in
3
part, to allow “Insurers’ counsel to review the ESI documents on the Relativity platform for
4
responsiveness or privilege . . . .,’” (Dkt. #161 at ¶4). See Dkt. #163 at 9. Defendants argue that
5
6
7
pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in In re Online Dvd-Rental Antitrust Litigation, costs
incurred to facilitate “a selection of documents for production from the set of documents for
8
potential production” are not recoverable under § 1920(4) because they are not copies
9
“necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Dkt. #163 at 10 (citing In re Online DVD-Rental
10
11
12
Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 914, 929–930 (9th Cir. 2015).
In response, the Insurers maintain that “[t]he ESI processing expenses in the amount of
13
$22,911.37 challenged by Icicle are all taxable costs and fall within the category of ‘fees for
14
exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily
15
obtained for use in the case’ as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1920(4).” Dkt. #165 at 1. Insurers argue
16
that Defendants misstate the holding in In re Online Dvd-Rental Antitrust Litigation:
17
18
19
20
21
22
The Ninth Circuit in Online Dvd-Rental stated that “Section 1920(4) allows for the
recovery of costs where the copies were obtained to be produced pursuant to Rule 34 or
other discovery rules” when discussing the principle that “the statute is not so restrictive
as to ‘specifically require that the copied document be introduced into the record to be an
allowable cost.’” Id. at 927 (quoting Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet
Ice Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir. 1990)). Thus, Online Dvd-Rental simply
affirmed that copies obtained in the course of discovery are taxable costs.
Dkt. #165 at 4. Insurers further take issue with Defendants’ characterization that the “‘purpose’
23
24
of Empire’s ESI services was to allow Insurers to review the documents on Empire’s Relativity
25
database platform before final production of Insurers’ ESI, thus implicitly arguing it rendered the
26
charges non-taxable.” Id. at 5 (citing Dkt. #165 at 4). Insurers argue that that “the services
27
‘allowed’ Insurers to review the ESI documents before production, but that was incidental to the
28
services provided by Empire for which Insurers sought limited expenses taxed as costs for
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAX - 3
Case 2:20-cv-00401-RSM Document 168 Filed 08/25/22 Page 4 of 6
1
copying ESI: native ESI processing, including de-duplication and metadata extraction,
2
conversion to TIFF, OCR, conversion to searchable PDF documents, and electronic Bates
3
labeling.” Id. at 6.
4
5
6
7
On reply, Defendants maintain that “Insurers seek costs for copying all ESI documents
to their review platform so that their counsel could cull out any documents they deemed
privileged or non-responsive” and are “thus improperly seeking costs for processing documents
8
that were uploaded to their review platform, but not actually produced to Icicle.” Dkt. #167 at 2
9
(emphasis in original). Defendants argue that Insurers “offer no meaningful response; they
10
11
12
13
merely contend that copying documents in order to review them for privilege and responsiveness
before actually producing them ‘was incidental to the services provided by Empire . . . .’” Id.
(citing Dkt. #165 at 5).
14
This Court reviews motions to retax costs de novo. Lahrichi v. Lumera Corp., No. C04-
15
2124C, 2007 WL 1521222, at *7 (W.D. Wash. May 22, 2007) aff’, 433 F. App’x 519 (9th Cir.
16
2011). In doing so, however, the Court is mindful that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54
17
18
“creates a presumption for awarding costs to prevailing parties” and the losing party must show
19
“why costs should not be awarded.” Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944–45
20
(9th Cir. 2003). The Court agrees with Defendants—it remains unclear whether the $22,911.37
21
awarded for “EDD: Native ESI Processing” taxed under § 1920(4) was all for costs associated
22
23
24
with documents “obtained for use in the case.” Insurers are correct in that § 1920(4) is “not so
restrictive as to ‘specifically require that the copied document be introduced into the record to be
25
an allowable cost.’” Dkt. #165 at 4 (citing In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d at
26
927). However, § 1920(4) is so restrictive as to only allow taxable those costs associated with
27
documents produced or received in the course of discovery. See In re Online DVD-Rental
28
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAX - 4
Case 2:20-cv-00401-RSM Document 168 Filed 08/25/22 Page 5 of 6
1
Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d at 929–930. Insurers leave the Court in the dark by stating some costs
2
under the challenged category “EDD: Native ESI processing” allowed Insurers to review
3
documents for privilege and responsiveness, but that those costs were merely “incidental.” Dkt.
4
#165 at 5–6. It is the Court’s understanding that review for responsiveness and privilege are
5
6
7
actions taken to determine whether a document should be produced in discovery. Based on this
understanding the Court is led to assume that costs under “EDD: Native ESI processing” were
8
for processing documents not “obtained for use in the case” as required to be taxable under
9
§1920(4). Insurers complain that Defendants’ Motion is “essentially a repeat of its arguments in
10
11
12
its Opposition to Motion to Tax Costs/Bill of Costs (Dkt. #159),” (Dkt. #165 at 1) but this means
Insurers have now had more than one opportunity to unequivocally state that the costs for “EDD:
13
Native ESI processing” were all associated with documents actually produced or received in the
14
course of discovery—Insurers have failed (or are unable to) do so. As such, the Court cannot
15
find that ESI processing expenses in the amount of $22,911.37 challenged by Defendants are all
16
taxable costs falling within the category of “fees for exemplification and the costs of making
17
18
19
copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case” as set forth
in 28 U.S.C. §1920(4).
20
Having reviewed the relevant pleadings, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,
21
and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion to
22
23
24
Retax, Dkt. #163, is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Taxation of Costs, Dkt. #162, shall be reduced by
$22,911.37. Costs are now taxed at $3,186.06. This replaces the amount taxed in the Clerk’s
25
prior Order at Dkt. #162.
26
//
27
//
28
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAX - 5
Case 2:20-cv-00401-RSM Document 168 Filed 08/25/22 Page 6 of 6
1
2
DATED this 25th day of August, 2022.
3
4
5
6
7
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAX - 6
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?