The Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-04756
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In AudienceScience v. Google, Judge Davila denied a costs stipulation because document-review expenses are not taxable costs under federal law.
The Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. and Revitalization Partners, L.L.C., which sought approval of the $210,000 costs agreement, and Google LLC and YouTube LLC, which submitted the bill of costs.
What happened
The Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC concerns costs requested after judgment on the pleadings favored Google LLC and YouTube LLC. The defendants sought $296,815.40, while the plaintiffs objected to $230,134.60 as document-review costs.
The parties later agreed to a $210,000 costs payment and asked the court to approve that agreement. The court explained that document review involves deciding which documents are responsive or privileged, not copying documents, and is not a taxable cost under the governing statute and local rule.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied the parties’ stipulation and directed the Clerk to enter the costs allowed under the statute.
The detailed version
- The Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC · No. 5:22-cv-04756
- Edward Davila
- Oct. 28, 2024
Background
After the court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Google LLC and YouTube LLC, the defendants submitted a bill of costs seeking $296,815.40. The Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. and Revitalization Partners, L.L.C. objected to $230,134.60, arguing that the amount included document-review costs that were not recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Before the Clerk decided which costs were allowed, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to settle the costs for a total payment of $210,000. The stipulation did not itemize the costs. The court observed that the defendants claimed only about $66,000 in costs unrelated to document review, so the proposed payment necessarily included some document-review costs.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that filing a stipulation asking for court approval would give the parties’ agreement the force of a court order. The court therefore could not approve costs beyond its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Civil Local Rule 54-3.
Under § 1920(4) and the local rule, taxable costs can include reproducing or copying discovery documents. The court distinguished document copying from document review. Document review involves the intellectual effort of deciding whether documents respond to requests and whether privilege applies. The court held that this intellectual effort is not a taxable cost under the statute or local rules.
The court rejected the defendants’ reliance on Parrish v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP and U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. It explained that Parrish treated copying costs incurred while collecting, reviewing, and preparing documents for production as potentially taxable, but did not hold that document-review costs generally are taxable. The court also rejected reliance on instructions in the district’s bill-of-costs form, stating that the availability of costs is governed by § 1920.
Disposition
The court DENIED the parties’ stipulation. It directed the Clerk to enter the taxation of costs allowed under the governing law. The opinion did not approve the agreed $210,000 payment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.