Opinion ID: 1364935
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Westlaw Research Charges.

Text: The trial court awarded Bergmann $110.25 for Westlaw research billed to him by his attorneys. The Boyces contend that a law firm's charges for computer research are better considered part of the attorney's fee or non-recoverable overhead rather than an allowable cost. We agree. Some federal courts have permitted the recovery of expenses for computer research as a cost so as to encourage attorneys to reduce the number of attorney hours otherwise needed for (presumably) more time-consuming manual research. . . . Harman v. Lyphomed, Inc., 945 F.2d 969, 976 (7th Cir.1991); see also United Nuclear Corp. v. Cannon, 564 F.Supp. 581, 591-92 (D.R.I.1983). The rationale of these cases seems to implicitly recognize that computer research is a substitute for attorney time, but nevertheless treats the computer research as a cost so as to promote a collateral policy goal of reducing overall litigation expenses. On the other hand, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that computer research is not a taxable cost: We believe that computer-aided research, like any other form of legal research, is a component of attorneys' fees and cannot be independently taxed as an item of cost. . . . Leftwich v. Harris-Stowe State College, 702 F.2d 686, 695 (8th Cir.1983); see also Cutter v. Town of Farmington, 126 N.H. 836, 498 A.2d 316, 322 (1985). Attorneys incur computer research expenses as a function of their research of the law. Thus, this expense is more closely related to the attorney's fee than to the kinds of recoverable costs defined in NRS 18.005. Although reducing overall litigation expenses is a desirable objective, there is no indication that the Nevada Legislature intended NRS 18.005 and NRS 18.020 for that purpose. Construing NRS 18.005(16) narrowly, we hold that computer research expenses are not recoverable costs.