Home > Journals > LAWREVIEW > Vol. 89 > No. 4 (2015)
This Note argues that the circuit courts should adopt a loose narrow interpretation of § 1920(4), like the Federal Circuit did in CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., and tax only a limited number of the electronic discovery services rendered in document production. Part I of this Note examines § 1920(4)’s statutory history and its application in federal court. Part II discusses the varying approaches taken by each side of the circuit split. Finally, Part III argues for implementation of a loose narrow interpretation because it more appropriately comports with other provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, encourages litigants to scrutinize their discovery requests, and minimizes the potential misuse of the adversarial system.