{"id":482,"date":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=482"},"modified":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","slug":"tevra-bayer-antitrust-bill-of-costs-e-discovery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=482","title":{"rendered":"Tevra Brands v. Bayer Healthcare \u2014 N.D. Cal. partially restores $1M+ in e-discovery costs to prevailing antitrust defendant"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, et al.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-15<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:19-cv-04312<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d); bill of costs; antitrust; e-discovery costs; trial transcripts; deposition transcripts; visual aids; Dawson v. City of Seattle<\/em><\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Bayer Healthcare LLC prevailed in a private antitrust suit brought by Tevra Brands LLC. As the prevailing party, Bayer filed a Bill of Costs on August 15, 2024 seeking $1,266,238.44 in six categories: $23,568 in trial and hearing transcripts, $55,355 in deposition transcripts and recordings, $1,094,530 in e-discovery costs, $44,654 in trial exhibits, $31,645 in visual aids, and $16,485 in witness expenses. Tevra objected, conceding only $45,666 in entitlement.<\/p>\n

The Clerk of the Court taxed costs at $45,666.05 in September 2025, including $0 for trial and hearing transcripts, $18,425 for deposition transcripts, $145 for e-discovery, $10,198 for trial exhibits, $414 for visual aids, and $16,485 for witness expenses. Bayer moved for District Court review of the first five categories of taxed costs, seeking restoration of $1,165,218.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Bayer\u2019s motion in part and denied it in part, partially restoring substantial costs the Clerk had disallowed.<\/p>\n

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and Dawson v. City of Seattle<\/em>, prevailing parties enjoy a presumption that their taxable costs will be awarded. Courts review the Clerk\u2019s taxation de novo, applying that presumption.<\/p>\n

On trial and hearing transcripts, the court partially restored costs, finding that some transcripts were necessarily obtained for use in the case beyond mere convenience. On deposition transcripts and recordings, the court restored additional amounts where the depositions were used or reasonably anticipated to be used at trial.<\/p>\n

The largest dispute \u2014 e-discovery costs \u2014 generated the most substantive analysis. The court parsed the categories of e-discovery cost (production, processing, hosting, technical assistance) and partially restored amounts that fall within the narrow definition of taxable e-discovery costs under In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litigation<\/em> and similar precedents. Document review costs, hosting fees beyond the production stage, and consultant time were generally not taxable, but data processing necessary to produce documents in the format ordered by the court was.<\/p>\n

On trial exhibits and visual aids, the court partially restored amounts tied to materials actually used or shown at trial, while disallowing amounts spent on materials not introduced. The witness expenses category was undisturbed, having been fully taxed by the Clerk.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n