Source: http://discovermodus.com/tag/ediscovery-cost-recovery/
Timestamp: 2018-06-22 09:04:20
Document Index: 789357156

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 6', 'art 5', '§ 1920', 'art 6', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 4', '§ 1920', 'art 5', 'art 4', 'art 3', '§ 1920', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 2', '§ 1920', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1']

Tag Archives: Ediscovery Cost Recovery
eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 6 – Conclusion
posted on February 12th, 2015 | Read more
In Part 5, we reviewed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc. and Cisco Ironport Systems, LLC, 737 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013), where it mostly followed the Third and Fourth Circuits in narrowly interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) as allowing recovery only of costs for copying and not for most modern eDiscovery costs. Although the Federal Circuit allowed for the inclusion of some specialized tasks (e.g., forensic imaging), when required to make necessary electronic copies, it did not open the door widely enough to admit processing, indexing, or the rest.
What do these largely consistent decisions from the Third, Fourth, and Federal Circuits mean for practitioners going forward?
This is Part 6 of a multi-part blog series discussing case law relevant to eDiscovery cost recovery.
View eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 1 – Cost Recovery Mechanisms
View eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 2 – Race Tires at the District Court
View eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 3 – Race Tires at the Circuit Court
View eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 4 – Country Vintner
View eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 5 – CBT Flint
eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 5 – CBT Flint
posted on February 10th, 2015 | Read more
In Part 4, we reviewed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Country Vintner of NC, LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc., 718 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2013),where it narrowly interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) as allowing recovery only of costs for copying and not for the costs of data processing. Later that year, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the question in CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc. and Cisco Ironport Systems, LLC, 737 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
This is Part 5 of a multi-part blog series discussing case law relevant to eDiscovery cost recovery.
eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 4 – Country Vintner
posted on February 3rd, 2015 | Read more
In Part 3, we reviewed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire, Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012), where it narrowly interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) as allowing recovery only of costs for copying and exemplification and not for any modern, technical eDiscovery expenses. The next year the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed the question in Country Vintner of NC, LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc., 718 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2013).
This is Part 4 of a multi-part blog series discussing case law relevant to eDiscovery cost recovery.
eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 3 – Race Tires at the Circuit Court
In Part 2, we reviewed the District Court’s decision in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire, Corp., No. 2:07cv1294, 2011 WL 1748620 (W.D. Pa. May 6, 2011) allowing the prevailing parties (Hoosier and DMS) to recover their eDiscovery costs from the losing party (Race Tires) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Race Tires appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which reached a very different conclusion in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire, Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012).
This is Part 3 of a multi-part blog series discussing case law relevant to eDiscovery cost recovery.
eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 2 – Race Tires at the District Court
posted on January 15th, 2015 | Read more
In recent years, parties have begun attempting to recover eDiscovery costs for data collection, processing, hosting, and production creation using the Rule 54 mechanism. Their essential argument is that these new, more-technical discovery activities are necessary and are the modern equivalent of the paper-based “making copies” and “exemplification.” One prominent example is found in the District Court’s decision in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire, Corp., No. 2:07cv1294, 2011 WL 1748620 (W.D. Pa. May 6, 2011).
This is Part 2 of a multi-part blog series discussing case law relevant to eDiscovery cost recovery.
eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 1 – Cost Recovery Mechanisms
posted on January 14th, 2015 | Read more
Traditionally, certain costs associated with the conduct of litigation have been recoverable by a successful party, such as court fees, transcript fees, costs for interpreters, costs for copying and exemplification, etc. As in all other areas of traditional litigation, electronic discovery has complicated this issue.
Modern electronic discovery entails a host of expensive products and services. Where do processing and hosting and technology-assisted review fit into the existing framework? Can modern discovery expenses be recovered under existing rule and case law? In this blog series, we will investigate these questions through a review of key recent case law on the subject, including Race Tires, Country Vintner, and CBT Flint Partners.
This is Part 1 of a multi-part blog series discussing case law relevant to eDiscovery cost recovery.