## Facts

- A group of related tire companies sued a competing tire manufacturer and a racing-series operator, alleging antitrust violations in the dirt-track racing tire market.
- Defendants obtained summary judgment and became prevailing parties eligible to seek costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
- Defendants sought taxation of costs that included substantial third-party e-discovery vendor charges for ESI-related work (e.g., collection, processing, searching, and production preparation).
- The clerk taxed costs in defendants’ favor, including most of the requested e-discovery expenses under § 1920(4).
- Plaintiffs moved (1) to appoint a special master to evaluate the technical reasonableness and necessity of the e-discovery charges and (2) for de novo review of the clerk’s taxation, arguing the e-discovery charges were not taxable under § 1920(4).

## Issues

1. Whether a special master should be appointed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 to address the technical nature, reasonableness, and necessity of the claimed e-discovery vendor charges.
2. Whether, on de novo review, the clerk properly taxed e-discovery vendor charges as “fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to appoint a special master.
- The court granted de novo review of the taxation of costs.
- After review, the court largely affirmed the clerk’s award, allowing most e-discovery vendor charges, subject only to minor reductions for certain entries.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ categorical argument that § 1920(4) excludes e-discovery vendor expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), costs (other than attorney’s fees) are presumptively allowed to prevailing parties, subject to statutory limits.
- A district court reviews the clerk’s taxation of costs de novo.
- 28 U.S.C. § 1920 is strictly construed; only enumerated categories may be taxed.
- Section 1920(4) permits taxation of “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.”
- For ESI productions, “making copies” can include electronic analogs of copying (e.g., scanning and format conversion) and, where necessary to produce usable electronic copies, certain associated vendor tasks integral to that copying process.
- Appointment of a special master under Rule 53 is discretionary and may be denied where the court is familiar with the discovery record and can resolve the post-judgment cost dispute without additional proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court declined to appoint a special master and, on de novo review, largely upheld taxation of defendants’ e-discovery vendor charges as recoverable costs under § 1920(4), treating many ESI-production services as part of the process of making copies necessarily obtained for use in the case.


Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., No. 2:07-cv-01294, 2011 WL 1748620 (W.D. Pa. May 6, 2011)