Though the parties had agreed to develop a cost allocation agreement, the parties failed to do so. This formed the basis of the Court's decision to award ediscovery costs to the prevailing party after summary judgment proceedings.
The Court affirmed the clerk's taxation of costs under FRCP 54 and awarded approximately $130,000 in ediscovery costs to the defendants. The plaintiffs did not contest that the costs were recoverable, even though a division exists among the courts, but instead argued that pursuant to an "Agreed Order Establishing Protocol for Electronic Information" that the "parties "shall meet and confer to develop reasonable and appropriate cost allocation agreements. . . However, the parties never entered into a cost allocation agreement, and Plaintiffs did not allege that they attempted to develop any such agreement with Defendant." On this basis the Court denied plaintiffs' request to reduce the costs and also found that hard copies of electronic images, hard drives and CD/DVDs, ediscovery costs after discovery, imaging hard copies, and expedited electronic transcripts would also be taxed. Autry Petroleum Co. v. BP Prods. N. Am., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83787 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 16, 2010).
Cross-reference:
- Arkfeld on Electronic Discovery and Evidence (3nd Ed.), § 7.4(G)(3), Cost Allocation - 26(b)(2)(iii); § 7.12, Taxation of Costs
Comments