Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 15, 2022

Revitch v. New Moosejaw, LLC

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:18-cv-06827
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Revitch v. New Moosejaw, Judge Chhabria granted in part and denied in part a costs challenge, awarding NaviStone $24,595.45.

Who this affects

Revitch and NaviStone; NaviStone received $24,595.45 in costs, while its request for discovery costs was denied.

What happened

In Revitch v. New Moosejaw, LLC, Revitch asked the court to review the Clerk’s taxation of costs. He argued that NaviStone should not receive costs because it unnecessarily prolonged the case after Revitch brokered a settlement with co-defendant Moosejaw.

The court rejected that argument and found that awarding costs was justified. It allowed deposition costs except for video-and-transcript synchronization and rough transcripts, and it rejected NaviStone’s request for document-processing and data-archiving costs because the request was not described in enough detail.

Judge Vince Chhabria granted in part and denied in part Revitch’s motion. NaviStone was awarded $24,595.45 in costs, but no costs for discovery.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Revitch v. New Moosejaw, LLC · No. 3:18-cv-06827
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
July 15, 2022

Background

Revitch moved for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs. He argued that the court should deny costs because NaviStone unnecessarily prolonged the litigation after Revitch brokered a settlement with co-defendant Moosejaw. The court rejected that basis for denying costs, explaining that NaviStone’s failure to settle and leave liability unresolved was not a proper reason to deny costs.

Deposition Costs

The court awarded NaviStone $24,595.45 in deposition costs. That amount was the amount awarded by the Clerk, minus charges for “digitizing & transcript synchronization” and rough deposition transcripts. The court held that synchronizing deposition videos with transcripts is not authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920. It also explained that rough transcripts are ordinarily not permitted and that NaviStone had not shown why those costs should be allowed here. The remaining deposition costs imposed by the Clerk were permitted.

Discovery Costs

The court awarded NaviStone no discovery costs. NaviStone sought $29,275.00 for “document processing and data archiving fees,” including file conversion, data archiving, document coding, electronic Bates numbering, load-file creation, metadata extraction, optical character recognition, and TIFF conversion.

The court explained that not all document-production costs are taxable, meaning recoverable as litigation costs, under section 1920. The party seeking those costs must describe and establish them with enough specificity and clarity to show that they are authorized. Because NaviStone’s information did not provide enough detail to determine whether the full amount was taxable, the court awarded no discovery costs.

Disposition

Judge Vince Chhabria granted in part and denied in part Revitch’s motion for review of taxation of costs. NaviStone was awarded $24,595.45 in costs.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.