Jaffe v. Household Int’l, No. 02 C 5893 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION 

PLAN, On Behalf of Itself and All 

Others Similarly Situated,

 

Plaintiff, 

No. 02 C 5893

v. 

Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland

HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., et al., 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Bill of Costs, which 

requests that Defendants reimburse Plaintiffs for $623,257.78 in litigation expenses 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d); and Local Rule 54.1. For the 

reasons stated below, the Court authorizes $296,482.32 of Plaintiffs’ costs: 

Costs requested 

by Plaintiffs 

Costs awarded 

by Court 

Fees for service of summons and subpoena $1,320.00 $1,320.00 

Fees for printed and electronically recorded 

transcripts 

$182,024.27 $182,024.27 

Fees for witnesses $17,225.13 $10,996.13 

Fees for exemplification and the cost of 

making copies 

$184,235.82 $79,219.57 

Compensation of court-appointed Special 

Master 

$22,922.35 $22,922.35 

Costs of conducting legal research $215,530.21 0 

Total $623,257.78 $296,482.32 

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1992 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:70230
Jaffe v. Household Int’l, No. 02 C 5893 Page 2 of 9

A. Background 

On October 17, 2013, the District Court entered a final judgment against 

Defendants in this case in the amount of $2,462,899,616.21. (Dkt. 1898). On 

December 16, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Entry of Bill of Costs (Dkt. 

1954) seeking qualified litigation expenses in the amount of $623,257.78, as 

described below: 

1. Fees for service of summons and subpoenas; 

2. Fees for printed and electronically recorded transcripts; 

3. Fees for deposition and trial witnesses; 

4. Fees for exemplification and the cost of making copies; 

5. Compensation of the court-appointed Special Master; and 

6. Costs of conducting legal research. 

Defendants object to Part 6 of the proposed bill of costs on the grounds that legal 

research expenses are not recoverable under the relevant rules. Defendants also 

urge the Court to carefully scrutinize Plaintiffs’ proposed bill of costs as “issues 

arise as to the sufficiency of the documentary support Plaintiffs have submitted to 

the Court.” (Dkt. 1973 at 2). 

B. Recovery of electronic legal research fees 

The Court first must determine if Plaintiffs are entitled to recover $215,530.21 

in costs related to computerized legal research. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

54(d) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides 

otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing 

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1992 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:70231
Jaffe v. Household Int’l, No. 02 C 5893 Page 3 of 9

party,” and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 specifies the type of costs that may be recovered under 

Rule 54(d). Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U .S. 437, 441 (1987). 

Those costs are: (1) fees of the clerk; (2) fees for transcripts; (3) fees for printing and 

witnesses; (4) fees for copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) 

docket fees; and (6) compensation of court-appointed experts and interpreters. 

Defendants argue that legal research expenses cannot be recovered as “costs” 

under Section 1920, and would instead be compensable only on a motion for 

attorney fees. Plaintiffs disagree, arguing that the Court’s discretion under Section 

1920 is broad enough to include electronic legal research expenses in an award of 

costs. 

In Haroco, Inc. v. Am. Nat’l Bank, 38 F.3d 1429 (7th Cir. 1994), the Seventh 

Circuit declared that computerized legal research costs could not be made part of a 

§ 1920 award because computerized legal research essentially streamlines or 

replaces book-based legal research, which is traditionally categorized as “legal fees” 

rather than costs: 

Computerized legal research involves an attorney sitting down in 

front of a computer and researching legal issues by searching through 

a database which now includes almost every resource one would find in 

the country's largest law libraries. In addition to the attorney charging 

the client for the time he or she spends doing this research, the 

companies that offer the computerized legal research services also 

charge a fee. Theoretically, even though the clients now pay two fees, 

their ultimate bill should be lower because the attorney should be able 

to do the research more quickly and efficiently. If this research had 

been done manually by an attorney sitting in the library reading 

through books rather than sitting before a computer screen, nobody 

would dispute that the attendant fees would be properly classified as 

attorney's fees and not costs. 

Id. at 1440 (reducing District Court’s § 1920 award by $30,439.57). 

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1992 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:70232
Jaffe v. Household Int’l, No. 02 C 5893 Page 4 of 9

More recently, without much analysis or explanation, the Seventh Circuit 

allowed costs for computerized research under § 1920: “Mr. Little contends that the 

award of costs for copies, computerized research, summonses, subpoenas, delivery 

services and a video-recorded deposition are not authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920. We 

disagree. All of the above costs are authorized by § 1920.” Little v. Mitsubishi 

Motors North America, Inc., 514 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2008). The same year, in 

Tchemkou v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2008), the Seventh Circuit reiterated 

the rule that computerized legal research expenses are properly categorized as 

attorney fees rather than costs under Section 1920: “[T]his court has construed 

section 1920 to include amounts spent on filing fees, postage, telephone calls and 

delivery charges, and has held that costs of computerized legal research are 

recoverable as part of an attorney-fee award.” Id. at 513 (internal citations omitted). 

In light of the more specific holdings in Haroco and Tchemkou, the Court finds the 

Seventh Circuit’s statements in Little to be non-controlling. Thus, the Court 

sustains Defendants’ objections to the inclusion of computerized legal research in 

Plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs. 

C. Sufficiency of Documentary Support for Other Cost Categories 

Plaintiffs seek five other categories of costs: (1) Fees for service of summons and 

subpoenas - $1,320.00; (2) Fees for printed and electronically recorded transcripts - 

$182,024.27; (3) Fees for deposition and trial witnesses - $17,225.13; (4) Fees for 

exemplification and the cost of making copies - $184,235.82; and (5) Compensation 

of the court-appointed Special Master - $215,530.21. Defendants do not object to the 

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1992 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:70233
Jaffe v. Household Int’l, No. 02 C 5893 Page 5 of 9

recoverability of those costs, but they “suggest that the Court must carefully 

consider” Plaintiffs’ proposed bill of costs to ensure that proper documentary 

support has been provided. (Dkt. 1973 at 6). 

Costs are recoverable only if (1) the expenses are allowed under § 1920, and (2) 

the expenses are reasonable, both in amount and necessity to the litigation. Deimer 

v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc., 58 F.3d 341, 345 (7th Cir. 1995). The Court 

will review each of Plaintiffs’ claimed costs in turn. 

 (1) Fees for service of summons and subpoenas - $1,320.00 

A prevailing party may recover costs associated with service of summons and 

subpoenas, so long as it is clear what has been served and to whom, the service was 

necessary for the litigation, and the service costs do not exceed the fee that would be 

charged by the U.S. marshal service. Collins v. Gorman, 86 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 

1996). Plaintiffs have satisfied those requirements with detailed documentation 

attached to their proposed bill of costs. (Dkt. 1913-2). Thus, they are entitled to 

recover $1,320 in fees for service of summons and subpoenas. 

(2) Fees for transcripts - $182,024.27 

A prevailing party may also recover costs associated with the preparation and 

printing of necessary transcripts. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1920(2). Costs associated with 

videotaping a deposition may be included. Jacobs v. Univ. of Wisconsin Hosp. & 

Clinics, 12 Fed. Appx. 386, 389 (7th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs have provided sufficient 

documentation showing reasonable costs associated with the many depositions 

conducted in this case (court reporter fees, videographer fees, and transcription 

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1992 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:70234
Jaffe v. Household Int’l, No. 02 C 5893 Page 6 of 9

expenses). (Dkt. 1913-2). Thus, they are entitled to recover $182,024.27 in fees for 

printed or electronically recorded transcripts. 

 (3) Fees for deposition and trial witnesses - $17,225.13 

Section 1920(3) also provides authority for awarding “fees and disbursements for 

... witnesses.” Allowable costs including witness fees, mileage, and subsistence 

allowances, so long as the Court determines that the witness’s testimony was 

relevant to an issue in the case. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(3), 1821. 

In this case, Defendants take particular issue with costs claimed for trial witness 

Elaine Markell. Ms. Markell traveled from her home in Rome, Italy to Chicago, 

Illinois to testify at trial, incurring $6,936.98 in airfare costs, $4,715.05 in hotel 

costs, $609.00 in meal costs, and $145 in taxi costs. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1821 provides that 

witnesses shall be paid an “attendance fee” of $40 per day for each day they appear 

at trial, as well as “actual expenses of travel on the basis of the means of 

transportation reasonably utilized ... at the most economical rate reasonably 

available” and a “subsistence allowance” for over-night stays not to exceed the 

General Service Administrations per diem rate for that geographic location 

($157/night for lodging and $64/night for meals and incidental expenses at the time 

of trial in the city of Chicago).1 28 U.S.C.A. § 1821(c)(1). 

Ms. Markell’s total expenses, amounting to over $12,000, are clearly in excess of 

what § 1821 allows as taxable costs. Without some explanation by Plaintiff, the 

Court cannot conclude that her $6,936.98 airfare was the “most economical rate 

 

1 U.S. General Services Administration website, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100120 

(last visited March 19, 2014). 

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1992 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:70235
Jaffe v. Household Int’l, No. 02 C 5893 Page 7 of 9

reasonably available”; and, although Plaintiffs do not specifically state how many 

days she was in town, her lodging and meal expenses certainly exceeded the GSA’s 

per diem rates. In apparent recognition of Ms. Markell’s less-than-thrifty travel 

expenses, Plaintiffs seek taxable costs for Ms. Markell in the reduced amount of 

$7,000 (Dkt. 1974 at 2), which would cover about 53 percent of the $13,229 in 

expenses originally claimed in Plaintiff’s’ proposed bill of costs. The Court finds that 

downward departure to be reasonable. The Court also finds that, as for the other 

witnesses, Plaintiffs have accurately calculated necessary witness costs in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1821, and provided proper documentation for all 

expenses (Dkt. 1913-2). Thus, applying the $6,229 discount for Ms. Markell’s 

expenses to the $17,225.13 total claimed for witnesses in Plaintiffs’ proposed bill of 

costs, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover $10,996.13 for witnesses. 

 (4) Fees for exemplification and copies - $184,235.82 

Plaintiffs request a total of $184,235.82 for exemplification and copying. A 

prevailing party is entitled to recover costs associated with making only necessary 

copies. Among the types of copying this Court has found to be unnecessary are 

copies made for a party’s own convenience, redundant copies of filed papers, and 

copies of documents for production in discovery beyond what is required for the 

opposing party or the Court. Haroco, 38 F.3d at 1441; Young v. City of Chicago, No. 

00 C 4478, 2002 WL 31118328, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2002). If the Court cannot 

tell from a proposed bill of cost what was being copied, the Court cannot authorize 

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1992 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:70236
Jaffe v. Household Int’l, No. 02 C 5893 Page 8 of 9

reimbursement. Collins v. Gorman, 96 F.3d 1057, 1058 (7th Cir. 1996) (vacating 

cost award where proposed bill of costs was vague). 

In this case, Plaintiffs seek recovery for copying costs as described by the chart 

below. A large share of the costs they seek are described as “Payments to Cahill 

Gordon for copying charges.” Cahill Gordon is presumably an outside vendor that 

provides duplication services. Plaintiffs provide the Court with nondescriptive 

invoices from Cahill Gordon and letters evincing Plaintiffs’ payment of those 

invoices, but do not include documentation that might reveal what was being 

copied, for what purpose, in what quantity, and for what price. Plaintiffs’ counsel 

Karen Cook’s affidavit is similarly nondescriptive: “Plaintiffs paid Cahill Gordon & 

Reindel $19,278.05 in reimbursement for Federal Express shipping charges and 

paid Cahill Gordon $51.36, and $85,686.84 as reimbursement for copying charges.” 

(Dkt. 191301 at 3). Thus, the Court cannot make a finding as to necessity, and 

cannot authorize those costs. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover costs associated 

with payments made to Cahill Gordon, but may recover costs in the amount of 

$79,219.57 for other necessary copying costs. 

Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies 

are necessarily obtained for use in the case 

Pleadings/filings 42,315 pages x $.25 $10,578.75 

Trial exhibits page count 43,385 pages x 3 copies = 

130,155 pages x $.25 

$32,538.75 

Trial demonstratives 182 pages x 3 copies = 546 

pages x $.25 

Merrill Communication LLC’s 

charges for demonstratives 

$136.50 

$1551.82 

Deposition exhibit page count 43,892 pages x 3 copies = 

131,676 pages x $.25 

$32,919 

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1992 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:70237
Jaffe v. Household Int’l, No. 02 C 5893 Page 9 of 9

(5) Compensation of the court-appointed Special Master - $22,922.35 

Finally, Plaintiffs seek recovery of the share of compensation they paid to Court 

appointed special master, Phillip S. Stenger. Section 1920(6) expressly allows for 

inclusion of that type of expense in a prevailing parties’ bill of cost. Thus, the Court 

authorizes costs in the amount of $22,922.35 for compensation paid to the special 

master. 

D. Conclusion 

For the above reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Entry of Bill of Costs, resulting in a total award of $296,482.32. 

Dated: March 20, 2014 

E N T E R: 

 MARY M. ROWLAND 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Plaintiffs’ documents 

produced to defendants 

5,979 pages produced x $.25 $1,494.75 

Payments to Cahill Gordon 

for copying charges 

$19,278.05 

$85,686.84 

$51.36 

$105,016.25 

TOTAL $184,235.82

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1992 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:70238