United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
JAMIE LEE ANDREWS, as surviving spouse of Micah Lee Andrews, Deceased, and JAMIE LEE ANDREWS, as Administrator of the Estate of Micah Lee Andrews, Deceased, Plaintiff,
AUTOLIV JAPAN, LTD and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jamie Lee
Andrews' (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Review
Clerk's Taxation of Costs against Jamie Andrews 
(“Motion to Review Costs”).
January 10, 2017, the Court issued an order  granting
Defendant Autoliv Japan, Ltd.'s (“Autoliv”)
Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed this action. On
January 16, 2017, Autoliv submitted its bill of costs .
On February 3, 2017, the Clerk of Court taxed Plaintiff costs
in the amount of $18, 196.64.
February 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Review Costs.
In it, Plaintiff moves to disallow $, 2743.80 of the costs,
arguing they are not authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the following costs are
Invoice date 11/23/2015 ([277.2] at 2)
Invoice date 2/10/2016 ([277.2] at 3)
Invoice date 12/15/2015 ([277.2] at 4)
Invoice date 12/31/2015 ([277.2] at 8)
Certified Transcript â Expedited
Invoice date 2/29/2016 ([277.2] at 11)
also argues that $562.50 in costs for “technical
services” provided by Ricoh USA, Inc. are not allowed.
February 17, 2017, Autoliv filed its response  to
Plaintiff's motion. Autoliv concedes that the $572.35
costs from the November 23, 2015, invoice are not taxable.
Autoliv explains that it needed the rough drafts and
expedited copies of certain deposition transcripts to prepare
its expert witness, William Van Arsdell, Ph.D. Autoliv also
argues that the technical services provided by its
e-discovery vendor Ricoh USA, Inc., are taxable, and, in
support, provides a letter from Ricoh to an employee of
Autoliv's law firm.
reply brief , Plaintiff concedes that Autoliv
demonstrated a need for rush copies of the depositions of
Chris Caruso, Steven Meyer, and Joseph Burton, M.d. Plaintiff
maintains her objection to the taxation of Dr. Van
Arsdell's deposition, arguing that an expedited copy of a
deposition taken more than thirty days before a
pretrial-motion deadline is not taxable. Plaintiff argues
that the letter from Ricoh to Autoliv does not explain the
reasons for and purpose of Ricoh's services.
54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in
Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order
provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney's
fees--should be ...