Awarding e-Discovery Costs to Prevailing Party: Billing Descriptions Dictate What is Recoverable

by Valorem Law Group LLC

E-discovery costs incurred by the prevailing party – easily running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars in complex commercial and IP litigations – may be compensable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).

I say ESI costs "may be compensable" advisedly. Not all of them are. Most importantly, the likelihood of recovering tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of ESI costs depends in significant part upon  the billing descriptions used by your vendor (or your firm's in-house e-discovery group).

By specifying at the beginning of the case the billing format for ESI costs, you greatly increase the amount of these costs you will recover at the end of the case.

ESI costs deemed not compensable

The vendor's primary responsibility was collecting data (e.g., by imaging hard drives) and de-duplication of electronically-stored information so that it could be reviewed in-house by Aliph and produced in discovery. Tasks on the bills include the following: pick-up and imaging of computer; local email extraction; network email merge and de-dupe (eliminating duplicates); normalize, prep, index, and search email; extract, de-archive, hash, filter, de-dupe, normalize, index, and search user files; and computer media.

Plantronics v. Aliph, 2012 WL 3822129, at *17 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citations omitted) (refusing to tax third party vendor costs of $100,948.17).

Other ESI costs deemed not compensable:

The problem with Google's e-discovery bill of costs is that many of item-line descriptions seemingly bill for “intellectual effort” such as organizing, searching, and analyzing the discovery documents. Most egregious are attempts to bill costs for “conferencing,” “prepare for and participate in kickoff call,” and communications with co-workers, other vendors, and clients.

Oracle v. Google, 2012 WL 3822129, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2012 ) (citations omitted) (refusing to award $2.9 million of ESI costs).

But compare - ESI costs deemed compensable:

Cost of assembling, ordering, tagging, and QA for document release to Kelora. Includes the creation of metadata load files as requested by Kelora and image “placeholders” for documents and ESI that the requesting party asked to receive in native format. $ 43,500.00

Cost of feeding assembled documents into an image printer for the creation of image copies of those documents to the requesting party. The cost includes imaging, de-blanking, bates stamping, assignment of protective orders and confidentiality designations, insertion of slip sheets, and native file place holders, image quality QA and final export to production media. $ 22,450.00

[Cost of] isolating and presenting eBay source code on a secure and locked down machine in anticipation of inspection by the requesting party.  $ 1,800.00

eBay v. Kelora Systems, 2013 WL 1402736, at *6 (N.D. Cal 2013).

So why are costs taxed on some of these ESI vendor invoices and not the other? There are several reasons, each of which highlights the importance of being smarter about the manner in which ESI providers bill for their services. Let’s break this down.

First of all, “intellectual efforts” applied in the course of e-discovery—including organizing, searching and analyzing e-discovery documents —are not taxable costs. This rule comes from recent cases out of the Northern District of California, see, e.g., Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., 2012 WL 3822129, at *3 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2012) and eBay Inc. v. Kelora Sys., LLC, 2013 WL 1402736, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2013), which themselves cite to Ninth Circuit non-ESI cases, see Romero v. Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1428 (9th Cir.1989) (“fees are permitted only for the physical preparation and duplication of documents, not the intellectual effort involved in their production.”), overruled in part on other grounds in Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir.1990), as well as the Third Circuit case Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158, 171 (3d Cir.2012).

The above example of non-compensable ESI invoicing reflects numerous conferences, meetings and communications deemed intellectual efforts. Swept into the same non-compensable category are ESI hosting and storage costs, collection and processing costs, strategic filtering and other services related to reducing the amount of ESI to be processed and/or reviewed post-processing. ESI vendors (or in-house departments), in their billing descriptions as well as in their itemization of costs, should both break out and emphasize later stage review and production of ESI from earlier stage identification, collection, preservation and filtering/reduction. Courts will most likely tax the former as costs but not the latter. Likewise, project management services will not be compensated unless differentiated from intellectual activity and tethered to later stage production activities.

Secondly, prevailing parties often incorrectly assume that the burden is on the losing party to justify the denial of each cost line item on the e-discovery invoice. To the contrary, as confirmed in recent decisions by Magistrate Judge Beeler in the Northern District of California, the burden is on the prevailing party to itemize its ESI costs with enough detail to establish that they are compensable under section 1920. eBay Inc. v. Kelora Sys., LLC, 2013 WL 1402736, at *3 ; Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 2012 WL 6761576, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2012). The upshot is that prevailing parties submit vaguely worded or ambiguous ESI invoices at risk of the court denying taxation of ESI costs.

The lack of sufficient specificity caused the court in Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc. to deny taxation of any of the $2.9 million of ESI costs incurred by the prevailing party. 2012 WL 3822129, at *3. Likewise, in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 2013 WL 1192947, at *8 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2013), the ESI invoice descriptions charged over $60,000 for “[p]roduction copying, file conversion, and metadata extraction” without providing the court with any means of breaking out non-compensable meta-data extraction. This left the court to impose a solution of reducing by one-third or over $20,000 the award of ESI costs.

As reflected in the above examples of compensable and non-compensable invoices, a good litmus test here is whether the billing expressly breaks out both labor and operation of various applications by such basic Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) phases as collection, preservation, processing, review, production etc, with specific billing descriptions under each and costs tethered to these specific descriptions. Woe unto the ESI vendor or the in-house e-services department that does not do this and relies on unduly brief, general descriptions in their billing for their services. The clear weight of the case authority is that they may not recover any of the very expensive e-discovery costs incurred in their case.

These dire consequences can be easily addressed at the outset of any e-vendor relationship. Typically, at the outset of the case, a vendor will provide a budget and statement of work. It is a relatively simple matter to attach a sample of a sufficiently specific invoice (such as the above) and require compliance with this format in any subsequent vendor billing.

Third, and finally, even where the ESI costs are deemed non-compensable intellectual activity or otherwise are deemed to fall outside of statutorily compensable document preparation and production, they nonetheless are taxable as costs if they are tethered to data formatting and production activities required by the parties’ stipulated discovery plan or local rules. See Fast Memory Erase, LLC v. Spansion, Inc., 2010 WL 5093945, at *4–5 (N.D.Tex. Nov.10, 2010) (awarding $197,637.72 in costs “for creating TIFF/OCR images of documents responsive to [non-prevailing party]'s discovery requests” when the requests for production required that documents be produced in that format). Cf. Eaglesmith v. Ray, 2013 WL 1281823, at * (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) (denied recovery of Optical Character Recognition (OCR) conversion costs, stating “[c]ourts have held that OCR, which makes documents electronically searchable, is not taxable, unless requested by the parties, because it is generally for the convenience of the parties.”).

As Judge Beeler recognized in Plantronics, the parties' agreement about the form of production might militate in favor of imposing costs on the non-prevailing party. 2012 WL 6761576, at *15 (costs associated with OCR conversion and load file creation compensable per the parties stipulated agreement “to produce non-source code documents in an electronic format to be agreed upon (e.g. TIFF files with a Concordance compatible load file) and to reasonably accommodate one another's request for OCR and load-file information to allow processing of production documents by the receiving party.”).

Once again, counsel greatly improves the odds of recovering ESI costs if, early in the relationship with the e-vendor, counsel requires that the e-vendor’s billing descriptions track the formatting agreed upon or requested by the parties. For example, rather than list metadata extraction under potentially non-compensable processing phase activities, the vendor could instead create a “Required Formatting” section and list such items metadata extraction in this section. This protects tens of thousands of dollars incurred in connection with OCR conversion, extracting metadata or other data formatting services that courts otherwise may refuse to tax.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Valorem Law Group LLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Valorem Law Group LLC

Valorem Law Group LLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.