WILLEDISCOVERYCOSTRECOVERYCATCHTHESUPREMECOURTSEYE? NICHOLASJ.WAGONER* A.

TheCostofMakingCopiesinaPaperlessWorld

Earlier this year Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck offered the legal profession a glimpse intothefutureofdiscoverywithhisopinioninDaSilvaMoorev.PublicisGroupe&MSLGroup.1 What the Bar should take away from this opinion, wrote Judge Peck, is that computer assisted review is an available tool and should be seriously considered for use in largedata volume cases where it may save the producing party (or both parties) significant amounts of legal fees in document review.2 Whereas armies of associates once riffled through boxes of paper looking for the smoking gun document, today, computer geeks use sophisticated softwaretosurftheseaofdatastorednotinfilecabinetsorwarehouses,butonharddrives andservers. Despite its numerous benefits over manual review, for many litigants, ediscovery services remain prohibitively expensive. According to one report, the costs of processing, reviewing,cullingandproducing1GBofdata[fallssomewhere]between$5,000and$7,000.3 (AsingleAppleiPadcomeswithupto64GBinstoragespace,or,intheory,between$320,000 and$448,000inpotentialediscoverycosts.) Needless to say, in largedata cases, the costs associated with ediscovery can add up quickly. Earlier this month, for example, a district court in California refused to reimburse Google for costs related to ediscovery totaling nearly $3 million. 4 Among the charges requestedbythecompanythatgaveustheImFeelingLuckybutton,wereediscoveryfees paid for intellectual effort such as organizing, searching, and analyzing the discovery documents.5The court noted that the Federal Circuit, applying Ninth Circuit precedent, has held that the party seeking costs has the burden of providing an itemized list with sufficient specificity.6 B. ABriefTripBackwardinTime In 1853, in an effort to bring uniformity to the great diversity in practice among the [federal] courts that existed at the time and reduce the number of cases in which losing litigants were being unfairly saddled with exorbitant fees for the victors attorney, Congress passed the Fee Act, a farreaching Act specifying in detail the nature and amount of the taxableitemsofcostinthefederalcourts.7
*NicholasWagonerisalitigationassociateinHoustonwiththelawfirmRogers,Morris&Grover,L.L.P.Nicholas also serves on the editorial board of the State Bar of Texass Appellate Advocate and is the publisher of CircuitSplits.com, a blawg that covers cases and issues bound for the United States Supreme Court. You can contactNicholasbyemailatnwagoner@rmgllp.com.

 Today,FederalRuleofCivilProcedure54(d)givescourtsthediscretiontoawardcosts toprevailingparties.8Courtslookto28U.S.C.1920todeterminethescopeofcoststhata prevailing party may recover. Before 2008, a prevailing party could recover [f]ees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case.9Seeking to makeelectronically[produced]information[re]coverableincourtcosts,10Congressamended section1920(4)in2008toallowprevailingpartiestorecoverall[f]eesforexemplificationand thecostsofmakingcopiesofanymaterialspaperswherethecopiesarenecessarilyobtained foruseinthecase.11 C. BacktotheFuture:TheEmergingConflictOverRecoverableEDiscoveryCosts With increasing regularity, prevailing parties are now seeking reimbursement for chargesrelatedtoediscoveryaspartoftheexemplificationfeesandcopyingcoststaxable undersection1920(4).Asaresult,asplitinauthorityamongthefederalcourtsofappealhas emergedoverthescopeofrecoverableediscoverycosts.Mostrecently,theThirdCircuitheld thatprevailingpartiesmayrecoverthecostofscanninghardcopydocumentsandconverting electronicfilesfromoneformattoanother,butcannotrecovercostsrelatedtothecollection, preservation,searching,orcullingofdata.12 Bycontrast,lastyeartheFederalCircuit,citingNinthCircuitprecedent,concludedthat prevailingpartiesmayrecoverallcostsofproducingadocumentelectronicallyundersection 1920(4).13Likewise, district courts within the Fifth Circuit may, at the very least, award e discovery costs related to scanning paper documents into textsearchable electronic files.14 AndwhereastheThirdCircuitdeniedrecoveryforelectronicprocessingandselectioncosts, in 2009 the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district courts award of $164,814.43 for processing chargesrelate[d]totheselectionandconversionofelectronicdocuments.15 Disagreementoverthescopeofrecoverableediscoverycostsisevenmorepronounced atthedistrictcourtlevel.Mostcourtstoconsidertheissuehaveagreedthatsection1920(4) permits courts to award the cost of scanning paper documents into digital copies.16Beyond that, however, the line dividing taxable from nontaxable ediscovery costs begins to blur. For example,adistrictcourtinIdahoonceawarded$4.6millionincoststoaprevailingpartyforthe creation of a litigation database that the court felt was necessary due to the extreme complexity of this case and the millions of documents that had to be organized because it savedimmensetimeforcounselwhootherwisewouldhavetosiftthroughthedocumentsby hand.17Othercourtshaveawardedcostsrelatedtofileformatconversionandsearching,18as well as fees paid to ediscovery service providers for project management and consulting.19 Some courts even appear to be willing to award costs associated with ediscovery carte blanche.20 D. WhyEDiscoveryCostRecoveryMayCatchtheSupremeCourtsEye Intheirpetitionforcertiorari(orcert.petition)currentlypendingbeforetheSupreme Court,theprevailingpartiesinHoosierRacingTireCorp.v.RaceTiresAmerica,Inc.challenged
2

 theThirdCircuitsdecisiontoslashasubstantialportionoftheirediscoverycostawardbased onthecourtsnarrowreadingofsection1920(4).21Attheendofthemonth,theninejustices willmeetforthefirsttimesincelasttermsclimaticconclusion,wheretheywillploughthrough thebacklogofcert.petitionsfiledduringtheirsummerrecess.Thereareseveralreasonswhy thecert.petitionchallengingtheThirdCircuitsdecisioninRaceTiresAmerica,Inc.maycatch theSupremeCourtseye. But to understand why the justices might be interested in deciding the question presentedinRaceTiresAmerica,Inc.,anotherbrieftripbackwardintimeisnecessary.During theearly1920s,ChiefJusticeTaftlobbiedCongresstohandovercontroloftheCourtsdocket, which, at the time, was overburdened with cases arising under the Courts obligatory jurisdiction.22CongressgrantedtheChiefsrequest,andwiththepassageoftheJudiciaryActof 1925, vested the Supreme Court with broad discretion to select which cases to review each term.23Inexchangeforthevirtuallyunfetteredcontroloveritsdocket,theCourttookonthe obligationofensuringtheuniformityoffederallaws.24 Inlightofitsinstitutionaldutytooverseetheuniformresolutionofimportantquestions offederallaw,thejusticesmayfeelinclinedtoreviewthescopeofsection1920(4)inthenear futureforanumberofreasons: First, the lack of a uniform interpretation of section 1920(4) undermines Congresss desire to restore uniformity to the great diversity in recoverable costs available to litigantsinfederalcourtsacrossthecountry. Second,adecisionbytheSupremeCourtclarifyingthescopeofrecoverableediscovery costs would impact litigants well beyond the parties to the Race Tires Case. In other words, by granting certiorari to resolve the question presented, the high court would notmerelybeengaginginerrorcorrection. Third,courtsandlitigantsconsumeconsiderableresourceschallenginganddefendinge discovery cost awards. The amount of time and money spent litigating the scope of recoverable ediscovery costs under section 1920(4) will only grow as the issue continuestopercolatethroughthelowercourts.Thiscouldaltogetherbeavoidedbya SupremeCourtdecisionestablishingauniforminterpretationofthestatute. Fourth, the lack of certainty surrounding the scope of recoverable ediscovery costs prevents businesses with massive quantities of discoverable data from being able to accuratelyanticipatethecostoflitigation. Fifth, the lack of uniformity is unfair to the extent that a party who prevails in a jurisdictionthathasadoptedabroadreadingofsection1920(4)maypotentiallyrecover millionsofdollarsmoreinediscoverycoststhanalitigantwhoincursthesamecostsina jurisdictionthathasadoptedanarrowreadingofsection1920(4).
3

Sixth, the Supreme Court has expressed renewed interest in resolving circuit splits relatedtocostandfeeshiftingstatutesoveritslastfewterms.25Lastterm,forexample, theCourtgrantedcertiorariinKouichiTaniguchiv.KanPacificSaipan,Ltd.toresolvean intercircuit conflict over the scope of section 1920(6), which permits recovery for the compensationofinterpreters.26TheCourtnarrowlyinterpretedthestatuteinholding thatthelanguagepermittedrecoveryofthecostofcompensatinganoraltranslator,but did not extend to costs related to translating documents. 27 As one commentator recently pointed out, [w]ittingly or unwittingly, the narrow approach taken by the justicesinTaniguchieffectivelyendorsedthe[similarlynarrow]approachandholding in Race Tires.28Given the fact that the Federal Circuit, along with numerous district courts,havepermittedtherecoveryofawiderangeofediscoverycostsunder1920(4), thejusticesmayfeeltheneedtoclarifythescopeofsection1920(4)asitdidtosection 1940(6)inTaniguchitopreventthedivisionfrombecomingevenmoreentrenched. Finally,thelikelihoodthattheSupremeCourtwillagreetoreviewagivencert.petition significantlyincreaseswhenthepetitionissupportedbyathirdpartyamicusbrief.Over the summer, Product Liability Advisory Council and the International Association of Defense Counsel moved for leave to file an amicus brief as friends of the Court, thereby significantly enhancing the petitioners chance that the Court will agree to review Race Tires America, Inc.29The amici pointed out that, among other things, the Court has frequently recognized the importance of granting certiorari and resolving splitsamongthecircuitsincasesinvolvingcostandfeeshiftingprovisions.30 Conclusion

E.

WhilethepetitionersinRaceTiresAmerica,Inc.certainlymakeacompellingargument for granting certiorari, the Supreme Court may nevertheless pass on the question this term given the limited number of spots on its docket. If that is the case, rest assured the lack of uniformity that presently exists over the scope of recoverable ediscovery costs will only become more entrenched as litigation over the issue continues to percolate throughout the lowercourts.Itisthereforeonlyamatteroftimebeforeediscoverycostrecoverycatchesthe SupremeCourtseye.
1

No.11Civ.1279(ALC)(AJP),2012U.S.Dist.LEXIS58742(S.D.N.Y.Feb.24,2012). Id.at*40.

Inst.fortheAdvancementoftheAm.L.Sys.,Univ.Denver,ElectronicDiscovery:AViewfromtheFrontLines5 (2008),availableathttp://iaals.du.edu/images/wygwam/documents/publications/EDiscovery_View_Front_Lines2007.pdf. 4 OracleAm.,Inc.v.GoogleInc.,Case3:10CV03561WHA(N.D.Cal.Sept.4,2012). 5 Id. The problem with Googles ediscovery bill of costs, the court explained, is that many of [the] itemline descriptionsseeminglybillforintellectualeffort.Id. 6 Id.

AlyeskaPipelinev.WildernessSocy,421U.S.240,25152(1975). Taniguchiv.KanPac.Saipan,Ltd.,556U.S.___(2012).

JudicialAdministrationandTechnicalAmendmentsActof2008,Pub.L.No.110406,6,122Stat.4291,4292 (emphasisadded). 10 154Cong.Rec.H10270,H10271(dailyed.Sept.27,2008)(statementofRep.ZoeLofgren). 11 28U.S.C.1920(4)(asamendedbytheJudicialAdministrationandTechnicalAmendmentsActof2008,Pub.L. No.110406,6,122Stat.4291,4292). 12 RaceTiresAm.,Inc.v.HoosierRacingTireCorp.,674F.3d158,15960(3dCir.2012). 13 Synopsys,Inc.v.RicohCo.(InreRicohCo.PatentLitig.),661F.3d1361,1365(Fed.Cir.2011). 14 Rundusv.CityofDallas,No.306CV1823,2009U.S.Dist.LEXIS101429,at*710(N.D.Tex.Nov.2,2009),affd by,634F.3d309,315(5thCir.2011). 15 Heckerv.Deere&Co.,556F.3d575,591(7thCir.2009)(emphasisadded). 16 See,e.g.,CordanceCorp.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,No.06491MPT,2012U.S.Dist.LEXIS51268,at*913(D.Del. Apr. 11, 2012) (reducing Amazons request for ediscovery costs from $447,694.63 to $2,721.53 in following the Third Circuits decision in Race Tires Am., Inc., noting that prevailing parties may not recover fees invoiced for electronicdocument processing, data storage, or Intelligent Culling); Country Vintner of N.C., L.L.C. v. E. & J. GalloWinery,Inc.,No.5:09CV326BR,2012U.S.Dist.LEXIS108905,at*911(E.D.N.C.Aug.3,2012)(following,in the absence of Fourth Circuit precedent, the Third Circuits opinion in Race Tires Am., Inc. in permitting the recoveryoffileformatconversioncostsintheamountof$218.59,butdenyingrecoveryofmorethan$110,000in costs associated with the collection, processing, metadata extraction, project management, and production of electronically stored information); Rawal v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 07C5561, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21880, at *610 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2012) (acknowledging that 1920(4) permits recovery of costs for scanning hardcopy documents, but denying recovery of $14,997.50 in costs for electronically producing and processing email accounts and usercreated files into searchable format in order to search relevant electronic mail and files becausetheservicesbilledwentbeyondmerelyconvertingapaperversionintoanelectronicversion(internal quotationmarksomitted));Franciscov.VerizonS.,Inc.,272F.R.D.436,446(E.D.Va.2011)(mem.op.)(denying recovery of costs related to processing emails for electronic searching, storing data, and electronic production because such services went beyond merely scanning hardcopy documents); Fells v. Va. Dept of Transp., 605 F. Supp. 2d 740, 743 (E.D. Va. 2009) (denying recovery of costs related to the creation of electronically searchable documentdatabase,Metadataextraction,andfileformatconversion);Klaymanv.FreedomsWatch,Inc.,CaseNo. 0722433CIVHUCK/OSULLIVAN, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123429, at *34 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2008), adopted, 2008 U.S.Dist.LEXIS98188(S.D.Fla.Dec.4,2008)(denyingrecoveryof$150,000incostspaidtoevendortosearch and retrieve discoverable electronic documents, because such work would be performed by paralegals and associateattorneysinapaperdiscoverycase);AdvanceBrands,L.L.C.v.AlkarRapidpak,Inc.,No.08cv4057LRR, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105061, at *15 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 15, 2011) ([T]he electronic scanning of documents is the modernday equivalent of exemplification and copies of paper, and, therefore, can be taxed pursuant to 1920(4).(internalquotationmarksomitted));Brownv.McGrawHillCos.,Inc.,521F.Supp.2d950,958(N.D.Iowa 2007)(permittingrecoveryof$205.12inscanningcostsbecauseelectronicscanningofdocumentsisthemodern dayequivalentofexemplificationandcopiesofpaper);Howellv.Boyle,CivilCaseNo.08727KI,2009U.S.Dist. LEXIS 115664, at *67 (D. Ore. Dec. 10, 2009) (permitting recovery of $258.40 in costs for scanning medical records, observing, [t]here is no requirement in 1920 that copies must be paper copies); One River Place Condo. Assn v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2771 (E.D. La. Jan. 13, 2010) (permitting recovery of


approximately $28,000 in costs for scanning documents, declining the losing partys invitation to punish [the prevailingparty]forchoosingthemoreefficient,electronicmethodofproducingcopies);Mannv.Heckler&Koch Def.,Inc.,No.1:08cv611,2011U.S.Dist.LEXIS46045,at*2024(JCC)(E.D.Va.Apr.28,2011)(denyingrecoveryof $35,115incostsassociatedwiththecreationofanelectronicdocumentdatabase,metadataextraction,searching, anddedupingbecausesuchactivitiesmorecloselyresembledcreatingratherthancopying);ComputerCache CoherencyCorp.v.IntelCorp.,No.C0501766RMW,2009U.S.Dist.LEXIS122596,at*1011(N.D.Cal.Dec.18, 2009)(permittingrecoveryof$24,955.11incostsforscanningandBatesstampingelectronicdocumentsbecause the Ninth Circuit permits recovery of costs incident to modern electronic document production, but denying recovery of $24,955.10 in costs for OCR, metadata and text extraction, PDF renaming, and data management becausesuchservicesaremerelyfortheconvenienceofcounsel).
17

LockheedMartinIdahoTech.Co.v.LockheedMartinAdvancedEnvtlSys.,Inc.,CaseNo.CV98316EBLW,2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS52242,at*8(D.IdahoJuly27,2006). 18 Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. C 095939 PJH, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64555, at *1012 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2012) (permitting recovery of $6,365.04 in costs necessary to convert computer data into a readableformatandrejectingtheThirdCircuitsholdinginRaceTiresAm.,Inc.inabsenceofdirectlyanalogous NinthCircuitauthority);ParadigmAlliance,Inc.v.CeleritasTechs.,L.L.C.,No.071121EFM,2011U.S.Dist.LEXIS 97413, at *34 (D. Kan. Aug. 30, 2011) (unpublished) (permitting recovery of $1,573 in costs for scanning documentsandusingtextrecognitionsoftwaretoconvertthemintoasearchableformattomakethemuseable, findingthatsuchservicesarethefunctionalequivalentofmakingcopies);AutryPetroleumCo.v.B.P.Prods.N. Am., Inc., Case No. 4:05CV00113 (CDL), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83787, at *510 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 16, 2010) (permittingrecoveryof$130,996.06incostsforprintingelectronicimages,scanningdocuments,DVD/CDformat conversion,andfileformatconversion,amongotherthings,becausesuchcostswerenecessarytorespondtothe opposingcounselsdiscoveryrequests);ParadigmAlliance,Inc.v.CeleritasTechs.,L.L.C.,No.071121EFM,2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97413, at *34 (D. Kan. Aug. 30, 2011) (permitting recovery of $1,573 in costs for scanning documentsandusingtextrecognitionsoftwaretoconvertthemintoasearchableformattomakethemuseable because such services are the functional equivalent of making copies); Farrar & Farrar Dairy, Inc. v. MillerSt. Nazianz, Inc., No. 5:06CV160D, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31056 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 2012) (permitting recovery of $1,643incostsincurredscanningthevoluminousamountsofpaperdocumentsexchangedduringdiscoveryand notingthat,[i]fthedocumentsbecamesearchableintheirelectronicform,thenthisresultwassimplyanadded benefit); Fast Memory Erase, L.L.C. v. Spansion, Inc., NO. 310CV0481MBD, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132025, at *1421 (N.D.Tex.Nov.10,2010)(denyingrecoveryof$860,533.18incostsforcollectingandprocessingESIin viewoftheweightofauthoritydecliningtotaxcostsfordataextractionandstorage,butpermittingrecoveryof $197,637.72 for creating TIFF/OCR images of documents responsive to plaintiff's discovery requests because such services are the electronic equivalent of making photocopies and the ESI was produced in lieu of paper copies). 19 Cargill, Inc. v.Progressive Dairy Solutions,No. CVF070349LJOSMS,2008 U.S.Dist. LEXIS101983,at *1722 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2008) (awarding $41,359.92 in fees for exemplification, which included costs related to scanning and Bates labeling documents, and electronic invoicecase management because such services were necessarytoprovideanadequatedefensetotheseveralmotionsandtrialpresentationgiventhelargevolume of documents involved); B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., No. 4:10CV00317SWW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150543,at*1925(E.D.Ark.Dec.16,2011)(permittingrecoveryof$11,675.00infeespaidtoanexpertinthefield of data recovery because such services were necessary for responses to . . . requests for electronically stored information);Jardinv.Datallegro,Inc.,CaseNo.08CV1462IEG(WVG),2011U.S.Dist.LEXIS117517,at*1426 (S.D.Cal.Oct.12,2011)(permittingrecoveryof$64,295incostsrelatedtofileformatconversionand$5,950in projectmanagement fees paid to a technician because the services made discovery easier, more efficient, and less expensive for all parties; involved massive amounts of edata stored in various digital formats; were performedinlieuofmakingconventionalcopies;andwerehighlytechnicalandsubstantiallydifferentfromthe typesofservicesthatattorneysorparalegalsaretrainedfororarecapableofproviding(internalquotationmarks omitted)).

20

See, e.g., In re Aspartame Antitrust Litig., 817 F. Supp. 2d 608, 615 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (awarding costs for the creation of a litigation database, storage of data, imaging hard drives, keyword searches, deduplication, data extractionandprocessing);CBTFlintPartners,L.L.C.v.ReturnPath,Inc.,676F.Supp.2d1376,138081(N.D.Ga. 2009),vacatedandremandedonothergrounds,2011U.S.App.LEXIS16499(Fed.Cir.Aug.10,2011)(permitting recoveryof$243,453.02incostsforretaininganoutsidecomputerconsultanttocollect,search,identifyandhelp produce electronic documents because of the massive quantity of data involved, the services were highly technicalandnotthekindthatattorneysorparalegalsarefittoperform,andpermittingthebroadrecoveryofe discoverycostsencourage[s]litigantstoexerciserestraintinburdeningtheopposingpartywiththehugecostof unlimited demands for electronic discovery); Parrish v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, L.L.P., No. C 1003200 WHA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41021, at *59 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) (permitting recovery of $22,667.28 in costs for collecting,scanning,Batesstamping,fileformatconversion,andimagingofdocumentsforreviewandpotential productionbecausetheexpendituresweremadeforthepurposeofadvancingtheinvestigationanddiscovery phases of the action); Pierson v. Walmart.com U.S.A. L.L.C. (In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litig.), No. M 09 2029PJH,2012U.S.Dist.LEXIS55951,at*3942(N.D.Cal.April20,2012)(rejectingtheThirdCircuitsholdingin Race Tires America, Inc. and instead permitting recovery of more than $710,194.23 in costs for fileformat conversionbasedonitsconclusionthatabroadconstructionofsection1920withrespecttoelectronicdiscovery productioncostsunderthefactsofthiscase[was]appropriate). 21 PetitionforaWritofCertiorari,HoosierRacingTireCorp.v.RaceTiresAmerica,Inc.,2011U.S.Briefs1520(U.S. June14,2012)(No.111520). 22 Kenneth W. Starr, Essay, The Supreme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: The Ghost of William Howard Taft, 90 MINN.L.REV.1363,136364(2006). 23 JudiciaryActof1925,ch.229,43Stat.936. 24 Starr,Essay,supranote22,at1364. 25 TheamicusbriefsubmittedtotheSupremeCourtbytheProductLiabilityAdvisoryCouncilandtheInternational AssociationofDefenseCounselintheRaceTiresCaseillustratesthispointwiththefollowingstringcitation: KouichiTaniguchiv.KanPac.Saipan,Ltd.,132S.Ct.1997(2012)(determiningwhether28U.S.C. 1920allowedJapaneseplaintifftochargecostsofdocumenttranslation);Foxu.Vice,131S.Ct. 2205 (2011) (reviewing whether a fee award for frivolous claims based on 42 U.S.C. 1983 should include amounts spent litigating nonfrivolous claims); Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010)(reviewingwhetherawardunderprevailingpartyfeeshiftingprovisionin28U.S.C.2412 couldbeoffsetbyclaimantsdebttogovernment);Hardtv.RelianceStd.LifeIns.Co.,130S.Ct. 2149 (2010) (reviewing whether plaintiff in Employee Retirement Income Security Act needs prevailing party status in order to receive fee award); Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006) (reviewing whether a claim for costs of expert witness fees was limitedby28U.S.C.1821and1920). Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae of Product Liability Advisory Council and International Association of DefenseCounselinSupportofPetitioners,HoosierRacingTireCorp.v.RaceTiresAmerica,Inc.,2011U.S.Briefs 1520(U.S.June14,2012)(No.111520).

26 27

132S.Ct.1997(2012)(interpreting28U.S.C.1920(6)). Id.
7


28

JohnM.Barkett,UnTaxingEDiscoveryCosts:Section1920(4)AfterRaceTiresAmer.Inc.andTaniguchi,

ACEDS.ORG(June29,2012),http://aceds.org/news/untaxingediscoverycostssection19204afterracetireamer

incandtaniguchi. 29 AmicusBrief,supran.25. 30 Id.