In Part 5, we reviewed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc. and Cisco Ironport Systems, LLC, 737 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013), where it mostly followed the Third and Fourth Circuits in narrowly interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) as allowing recovery only of costs for copying and not for most modern eDiscovery costs. Although the Federal Circuit allowed for the inclusion of some specialized tasks (e.g., forensic imaging), when required to make necessary electronic copies, it did not open the door widely enough to admit processing, indexing, or the rest.
What do these largely consistent decisions from the Third, Fourth, and Federal Circuits mean for practitioners going forward?
This is Part 6 of a multi-part blog series discussing case law relevant to eDiscovery cost recovery.
- View eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 1 – Cost Recovery Mechanisms
- View eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 2 – Race Tires at the District Court
- View eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 3 – Race Tires at the Circuit Court
- View eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 4 – Country Vintner
- View eDiscovery Cost Recovery, Part 5 – CBT Flint