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.

CSP Technologies, Inc. v. Sud-Chemie Ag

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, New Albany Division

May 20, 2015

CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
SUD-CHEMIE AG, SUD-CHEMIE, INC., AIRSEC S.A.S., CLARIANT PRODUKTE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, CLARIANT CORPORATION, CLARIANT PRODUCTION (FRANCE) S.A.S., Defendants.

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' BILL OF COSTS

RICHARD L. YOUNG, Chief District Judge.

Following the court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of the Defendants, they filed a timely Bill of Costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 seeking costs in the amount of $359, 215.53. Plaintiff objects. The court, being duly advised, finds Defendants are entitled to costs in the amount of $94, 766.88.

I. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that "unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs - other than attorney's fees - should be allowed to the prevailing party." Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, these costs are limited to:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed and electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

28 U.S.C. § 1920.

There is a "strong presumption" that the prevailing party will recover its costs under Rule 54(d). Contreras v. City of Chicago, 119 F.3d 1286, 1295 (7th Cir. 1997). The "party seeking an award of costs carries the burden of showing that the requested costs were necessarily incurred and reasonable." Trustees of Chicago Plastering Inst. Pension Trust v. Cork Plastering Co., 570 F.3d 890, 906 (7th Cir. 2009). In determining whether to tax costs against the losing party, the court engages in a two-part inquiry: "(1) whether the cost imposed on the losing party is recoverable and (2) if so, whether the amount assessed for that item was reasonable." Majeske v. City of Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 824 (7th Cir. 2000).

II. Analysis

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), Defendants seek costs related to electronic discovery in the amount of $358, 614.65. Plaintiff argues these costs are not recoverable per the parties' agreement set forth in the parties' Case Management Plan ("CMP"). Plaintiff further argues that, even if Defendants did not waive their right for costs associated ...


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.