cost directly and necessary to chop the final produced document into a suitable the tronic production format can be taxed in this case that represents only the three hundred and sixty two dollars forty one cen not been explained and we did not know therefore there was no way to know her directly attributable the actual copy not extremist tasks not covered by the statute i said ok yes yes you going about the burden point you made which is if we  exists on the part of the parties requesting the taxation costs that they're supposed to itemize in such a way that all you see on the bill is the final stage duplication of documents that are actually either submitted to the court or turned over to the other side the one of the issues here is the cost of binders right those are i take it that the the binders of the documents that were turned over is that with those would recover more than twenty four thousand dollars for a paper and auction related copying costs producing documents electronically is more expensive than producing a paper not less and i direct the courts a lot of your article a sixty do extent the document that information is maintained electronically there's an obligation to produce it reasonably usable for me and the sindo to principles make clear a number of courts have held back if a party maintains information electronically that physical or now recovered recover for digital but just those costs nothing else judge it just the opposite just because the physical copy themselves were yes i would agree i would agree with you you would agree then that you can't prove it i would attorneys fees investigator fees expert witness fees and our probable in other words the cost of performing substantive work in the case are not a couple so if you put that in electronic discovery contacts the cost of identifying historians the cost of identifying where the relevant documents are that's not recoverable the cost of reviewing is not recoverable but i think maybe to put this in perspective it's helpful to just walk through where the steps are so fast and  identifying relevant documents we don't we agree that that is not recoverable but in the next that is imaging or copying the data so that it can be loaded into any just now what do you think with the th circuit said  in my mind from years as a young associate in a big law firm doing this stuff we're just we're is we're is what i did them going to the client's office looking at documents copying the ones i wanted to bring back issued sixty four dollars specific r b s asking for documents on specific topics which meant he had to identify sources of those documents but that he had to identify which documents were actually responsive and to do that within the six month discovery period suppose you were the universe was a family so you had to convert those right to be able to read them is that to put right in the cup and suppose at the end of the day you only turned over ten of those to certain category of cost is making copies then the nd question which is what we're talking about is whether it was necessary to produce to gather x number of documents and then only produce wigner documents enable copies but we don't go back to the cutting out of the tree and i think the analogy that i have in my mind and it sounds like my colleagues have in their mind too is in a lot of situations you've got to assemble a boatload of documents to figure out which ones are the ones that are responsible and the part where you some all the documents and they go through the process of identifying which ones are responsive they might have to actually copy documents in that process you might have to send e mails that attach p d f so you might have to do all kinds of things that enable you to do the calling to identify which documents are actually responsive and then at the very end stage you copy those documents so that you can turn it over but everything that happens before the copying of the identify documents of it you can turn them over is not taxable in the hardcopy context and it sounds like be imaged copied and sent over but the part where you upload the inot entire gamut in order to cull them so you can identify which ones are going to be turned over that's just not making copies judge a discovery is just different than producing a paper in which he discovered contacts it's one holistic process and all of these steps are intrinsic in the process of making copies while some of the examples you gave the paper contacts may have been related to ludwin i don't know what we're supposed to do with searching for example here i mean you discovery part of the discovery process of searching them all the e file so that you can identify which ones response and that just does not seem like something that the statute meant to allow the prevailing party to recover because any conceivable analogy i can come up with that's just the process of document review so you go through and figure out what's really yeah you're right it all happens you know sort of seamlessly from  w i understand these platforms work and so you might pay somebody discovery vendor a significant amount because they can do the do all of this efficiently but a lot of what they're doing is just not recoverable judge we're not requesting costs for searching we agree that that's on the final electronic copy which itself has little of any monetary value they priced based on stages of the process and it could be but that doesn't answer the question what you're really saying is is that as a result of doing this  digitally now is it the recover because you're going to be dramatically lower because there is no longer a physical copy there will be it's just pushing a button and producing the ten documents so that just reduces the cost it doesn't need that you need to reach back and it doesn't require that you reach back further into the process and recover more services in order to increase the cost just that just doesn't answer the question just that i think that that view is contrary to  calculation costs is routine it never produces disputes supreme court said to have a good they're relatively minor incidental expenses they're almost always just calculated by the c if we go beyond sort of the clear line rule namely it's the cost of ultimate copying the documents the points the recovery costs is going to become another prevailing party's cost because the administrative costs were built into the final per page rate but simply if congress had intended to continue that practice in the discovery context it could have changed the statute to say copies of provide product on page thirty six of their brief we specifically say that you discovery platform is used to filter conduct searches for conducted knowledge assisted review secondly the legislative history as reviewed report coming out of the judicial conference says the limit or the statutory amendments were limited and the amendment to this section would expand the concept of papers it does not say to expand the concept of making copies or only the concept of what