Opinion ID: 418106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Exclusion of Computer Expenses

Text: 21 The district court completely denied nearly $3,000 worth of computer services allegedly incurred by plaintiffs, reasoning that plaintiffs failed to explain the nature of the services as required by a court order directing plaintiffs to substantiate all claimed expenses with invoices, evidence of payment, and reason for the expense. In response to the order, plaintiffs submitted ledger sheets which reflected various costs, including computer expenses, and furnished defendants with invoices. While they never provided any explanation for the costs, one of their attorneys at the hearing voiced her willingness to explain the computer costs then. Inexplicably, neither defense counsel, who was questioning plaintiffs' attorney at the time, nor the court requested that she do so. 22 Given that plaintiffs furnished invoices and ledgers, and agreed to explain the expenses, they obeyed the court order in substantial part. While the ledger entries may not have supported all of the claimed expenses, as defendants assert, this does not justify the court's complete denial of expenses. The district court rendered its decision 13 months after the hearing, and we conclude that the court overlooked the plaintiffs' compliance with the court order. On remand, the court should reconsider whether any or all computer costs are recoverable in this case. The test, as always, is one of reasonableness. [W]ith the exception of routine office overhead normally absorbed by the practicing attorney, all reasonable expenses incurred in case preparation, during the course of litigation, or as an aspect of settlement of the case may be taxed as costs.... Dowdell, 698 F.2d at 1192.