§Why CasetextPricing

Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.

RESPONSE re Bill of Costs Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Revised Bill of Costs

9 Cited authorities

  1. Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Cent. Tex. Airborne Sys. Inc.

    741 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that pro hac vice fees are not recoverable as costs

  2. Resnick v. Netflix, Inc.

    779 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2015)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that " narrow construction of Section 1920 requires recognition that the circumstances in which a copy will be deemed 'necessarily obtained' for use in a case will be extremely limited."

  3. CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.

    737 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 60 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding imaging costs taxable when the opposing party requests metadata be included in the production and imaging is the least expensive manner of obtaining it

  4. City of Alameda v. Nuveen Mun. High Income Opportunity Fund

    No. C 08-4575 SI (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that "that OCR and metadata extraction are not recoverable."

  5. Cooper v. United Air Lines, Inc.

    Case No. 13-cv-02870-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2015)   Cited 5 times

    Case No. 13-cv-02870-JSC 06-05-2015 DRUCILLA COOPER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., Defendant. JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge ORDER RE: MOTION FOR REVIEW OF THE CLERK'S TAXATION OF COSTS Re: Dkt. No. 94 Now pending before the Court is Defendant United Air Lines, Inc.'s Motion for Review of the Clerk's Taxation of Costs. (Dkt. No. 94.) After carefully considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R

  6. Johnson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

    No. C 09-03596 CRB (N.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Applying Rule 54(d) to request for costs where employer prevailed on Labor Code claims, while applying Labor Code section 218.5 to employer's request for attorneys' fees on those claims

  7. Fitbug Limited v. Fitbit Inc.

    Case No. 13-1418 SC (N.D. Cal. May. 13, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Case No. 13-1418 SC 05-13-2015 FITBUG LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. FITBIT, INC., Defendant. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR REVIEW OF CLERK'S TAXATION OF COSTS I. INTRODUCTION Now before the Court is Plaintiff Fitbug Limited's ("Fitbug") motion for review of costs allowed by the Clerk of the Court ("Clerk"). ECF No. 108 ("Mot."); see also ECF Nos. 100 ("Bill of Costs"), 106 ("Cost Taxed"). The motion is fully briefed, ECF Nos. 112 ("Opp'n"), 114 ("Reply"), and appropriate for resolution

  8. Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54   Cited 41,163 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

  9. Section 1920 - Taxation of costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1920   Cited 12,473 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Referring only once to "expenses," and doing so solely to refer to special interpretation services provided in actions initiated by the United States