Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Andrews v. Autoliv Japan, Ltd.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

June 29, 2017

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,
v.
AUTOLIV JAPAN, LTD and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jamie Lee Andrews' (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Review Clerk's Taxation of Costs against Jamie Andrews [288] (“Motion to Review Costs”).

         I. BACKGROUND

         On January 10, 2017, the Court issued an order [274] 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 [277]. On February 3, 2017, the Clerk of Court taxed Plaintiff costs in the amount of $18, 196.64.

         On 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 not allowed:

Invoice date 11/23/2015 ([277.2] at 2)
Realtime Services $472.35
Equipment Rental $100.00
Invoice date 2/10/2016 ([277.2] at 3)
Rough Draft $271.50
Invoice date 12/15/2015 ([277.2] at 4)
Rough Draft $426.00
Invoice date 12/31/2015 ([277.2] at 8)
Certified Transcript – Expedited $533.45
Invoice date 2/29/2016 ([277.2] at 11)
Rough Draft $378.00
TOTAL $2181.30

         Plaintiff also argues that $562.50 in costs for “technical services” provided by Ricoh USA, Inc. are not allowed.

         On February 17, 2017, Autoliv filed its response [291] 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.

         In her reply brief [296], 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.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in part:

Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney's fees--should be ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.