Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:6656
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
`ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`HOSPIRA, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 1:16-cv-00651
`C.A. No. 1:17-cv-07903
`(Consolidated)
`
`Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
`
`
`
`FRESENIUS KABI’S REPLY TO HOSPIRA’S OBJECTIONS TO
`FRESENIUS KABI’S BILL OF COSTS
`
`Fresenius Kabi is entitled to its taxable costs as the undisputed prevailing party, as
`
`identified in its Bill of Costs. Hospira does not dispute $49,690.72 of costs. Hospira’s Objections
`
`to the remaining Bill of Costs are overly broad and seek to exclude entire categories of taxable
`
`costs based on one or two line items. Hospira’s objections should be overturned. A summary of
`
`the amounts requested and disputed are attached as Appendix A to this brief.
`
`I.
`
`Fees of the Clerk Should Be Taxed
`
`Hospira objects to Fresenius Kabi’s request for $100.00 for the pro hac vice fees as not
`
`taxable. But the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the award of such fees as taxable costs. U.S. v.
`
`Emergency Med. Associates of Ill., Inc., 436 F.3d 726, 730 (7th Cir. 2006). The binding nature of
`
`the decision has been acknowledged by this Court holding that “the Seventh Circuit in
`
`Emergency Medical Associates, after recognizing that the issue had been raised, affirmed on the
`
`merits the award of pro hac vice fees as costs. That ends the matter as far as a district court is
`
`concerned.” Boogaard v. Nat. Hockey League, No. 13-cv-4846, 2017 WL 5517231, at *1 (N.D.
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:6657
`
`Ill. Nov. 1, 2017). Hospira does not object to the reasonableness or support for the amount of the
`
`fees. As such, the fees are recoverable and Hospira’s objection should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`Fresenius Kabi’s Transcript Fees Should Not be Reduced
`
`Hospira agrees that $21,578.82 of Fresenius Kabi’s transcript costs should be awarded.
`
`Hospira’s objections to the remaining $15,228.69 are contrary to the law and should be denied.
`
`A.
`
`The Requested Court Reporter Fees Should Be Taxed
`
`The “Realtime” line item on the court reporter’s invoice from the July trial ($1,780.80) is
`
`not for Realtime service, but instead was for the creation of daily trial transcripts. These daily
`
`rough trial transcripts were necessary for counsel to prepare witnesses examinations, as
`
`identified in its Bill of Costs and accompanying Wallace Declaration. (D.I. 185 at 3; D.I. 185-1
`
`at ¶5.) Hospira raises no objection to the recovery of daily transcript fees.
`
`Even assuming this charge were for Realtime, such fees can be taxable if necessary to the
`
`litigation. Here, as the Court will recall, the dexmedetomidine trial was “technical and
`
`complicated, and these services were reasonably necessary to ensure accurate and precise
`
`recording of expert testimony.” Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., Ltd., 315 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 977, 1022 (N.D. Ill. 2018). As such, it would be reasonable for the Court to tax the
`
`costs against Hospira if they were Realtime fees during trial.
`
`B.
`
`Fresenius Kabi Can Recover Costs for Videotaping All Depositions Because
`Each Cost Was Reasonably Incurred at the Time
`
`Hospira misleadingly quotes precedent to argue that, as a rule, the cost of a video may not
`
`be recovered if the transcript was also purchased. (D.I. 188 at 4 (citing SP Tech., LLC v. Garmin
`
`Int’l, Inc., No. 08-cv-2348, 2014 WL 300987, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2014) (Pallmeyer, J.)).)
`
`The Court’s next sentence reveals the deception: “A party may, however, recover costs for both a
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:6658
`
`videotaped deposition and transcript of the same deposition provided that both are reasonably
`
`necessary.” SP Tech., 2014 WL 300987, at *5.
`
`Hospira is also incorrect that, as a rule, it should be taxed only for the costs of video
`
`depositions played at trial. (D.I. 188 at 2.) Instead, in Chamberlain, the requesting party had not
`
`established the reasonableness of its request for all video fees. Chamberlain, 315 F. Supp. 3d at
`
`1023. The actual legal principal is whether it was reasonable to order the video “at the time it
`
`was taken.” Interclaim Holdings Ltd. v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, No. 00-cv-
`
`7620, 2004 WL 557388, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Nar. 22, 2004) (Pallmeyer, J.) (citing Cengr v. Fusibond
`
`Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 455 (7th Cir. 1998)); Beam v. Petersen, No. 07-cv-1227, 2011
`
`WL 4431815, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 22, 2011) (Pallmeyer, J.).
`
`Hospira does not dispute that incurring the cost of each videotaped deposition was
`
`reasonable at the time, as detailed in the Bill of Costs and Wallace Declaration. (D.I. 185 at 3-10;
`
`D.I. 185-1, ¶¶ 6-8.) Hospira’s objection relies only on its non-existent bright-line rules, and so
`
`should be denied. Hospira’s objection to Fresenius Kabi incurring the cost of taping its own
`
`witnesses is curious (DI. 188 at 2), given that Hospira, as the taking party, arranged the
`
`videotaped depositions. At the time, Hospira thought the cost was reasonable and necessary, and
`
`so the full cost of $17,199.57 is taxable.
`
`C.
`
`Fees for Deposition Exhibit Copies Are Taxable
`
`Hospira objects to paying costs for the actual deposition exhibits marked at each
`
`deposition based on the single example of Hospira’s expert Mr. Seaton, where 953 pages of
`
`exhibits were marked. (D.I. 188 at 2-3.) Hospira uses that example to conclude that all identified
`
`costs are excessive. Hospira does not object to the per-page cost, only to the number of pages.
`
`Unlike Hospira’s cited cases, the charges here are for the official exhibits that were
`
`actually marked and used at deposition. These marked copies were identified and used at trial.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:6659
`
`This practice was particularly important here where the same documents often appeared multiple
`
`times in a party’s production, and so deposition questions referring to particular Bates-labeled
`
`pages could be confused if different versions were used.
`
`Hospira has not articulated why—even if the number of pages for Mr. Seaton’s
`
`deposition were unreasonable—the remaining exhibits for other witnesses are also unreasonable.
`
`For example, Hospira’s counsel marked 877 pages of exhibits during its deposition of Fresenius
`
`Kabi’s expert Dr. Maile. (188-3 at 2.) Hospira does not explain why its own counsel marked an
`
`“unreasonable” number of pages, or why Fresenius Kabi should not be able to recover costs for
`
`the exhibits Hospira thought were reasonable and necessary at the time of the deposition.
`
`Hospira should be taxed $5,912.65.
`
`D.
`
`Fresenius Kabi’s Requests for Expedited Transcripts Should Be Included
`
`Hospira objects to the fees for the expedited delivery of particular expert depositions on
`
`the grounds that there was no responsive deposition scheduled afterwards. This objection ignores
`
`the truncated discovery schedule in the case.
`
`In order to comply with the Court’s June 25 Final Pretrial Order deadline (see 4/18/18
`
`Order, D.I. 98), the parties agreed to exchange information for the Final Pretrial Order, including
`
`motions in limine, on June 18 and June 22. Hospira objects to obtaining expedited delivery of
`
`transcripts for witnesses deposed in the two weeks before the exchange date: June 15 (Dr.
`
`Sheinin), June 13 (Dr. Kipp and Mr. Seaton), June 8 (Mr. Hofmann), and June 5 (Dr. Maile). As
`
`explained in its Bill of Costs and Wallace Declaration, it would not have been feasible to wait for
`
`normal delivery—14 days—of each of these final deposition transcripts and still meet the
`
`schedule in the case. (D.I. 185 at 6; D.I. 185-1, ¶ 7.) Courts have granted costs for expediting in
`
`similar situations, where expedited transcripts were requested for hearings or submissions more
`
`than a month after the deposition was taken. Chamberlain, 315 F. Supp. 3d at 1022 (granting
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:6660
`
`expedited transcript fees for July 2016 deposition transcripts for an August 30, 2016 hearing).
`
`Expediting transcripts was reasonable, and so the costs should not be reduced.
`
`III.
`
`Fresenius Kabi’s Fees for Witness Disbursements Should Not Be Reduced
`
`Hospira seeks to reduce the costs incurred by Fresenius Kabi’s expert witnesses, pursuant
`
`to Rule 26(b)(4)(E). Hospira does not dispute that preparation time can be recovered, but instead
`
`argued—based on a single example—that insufficient detail was provided.
`
`In Waters, this Court awarded expert expenses for time spent reviewing documents in
`
`preparation for deposition and only excluded time spent in conversation with counsel before the
`
`deposition. Waters v. City of Chicago, 526 F. Supp. 2d 899, 901 (N.D. Ill. 2007). This is the
`
`same approach Fresenius Kabi has taken here, as detailed in the Wallace Declaration. (D.I. 185-
`
`1, ¶ 10.) Fresenius Kabi requested only 6 hours of Dr. Kipp’s time to “Review materials prior to
`
`SH meeting downtown,” (185-10 (Ex. 9) at 5). Similarly, Dr. Maile’s bill reflects 13 hours for
`
`“Document Review/Deposition Preparation” on June 4, 2018, the day before his deposition. (Id.
`
`at 6.) Fresenius Kabi reduced the requested time to remove time spent with counsel. Mr.
`
`Hofmann’s invoice indicates he spent 4 hours reviewing prior related testimony, reviewing
`
`documents, and discussing them with his staff—time with counsel is not included. (Id. at 10.)
`
`Finally, Mr. Lankau’s time entry for 5.5 hours of deposition preparation (id. at 3) has been
`
`reduced to 1.5 hours to remove time spent speaking with counsel. The costs should not be
`
`reduced by $10,300.
`
`IV.
`
`Fresenius Kabi’s Exemplification and Printing Costs Should Not Be Reduced to Zero
`
`Hospira does not dispute that Fresenius Kabi is entitled to recover some costs for
`
`exemplification and printing, but instead contends that a handful of charges cost are not
`
`sufficiently described or qualify as a taxable cost. It then concludes that no costs, even from
`
`other categories, should be awarded. Hospira’s draconian objection should be denied.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:6661
`
`A.
`
`Hospira’s Objections Do Not Specifically Address Fresenius Kabi’s Digital
`Conversion Costs
`
`Fresenius Kabi seeks its costs for the digital conversion of files required for the
`
`production of documents, $2,585.82. These costs are recoverable, and were supported by the Bill
`
`of Costs, Wallace Declaration, and supporting invoices. Hospira has not raised any objection to
`
`this category of costs, and so they should be awarded to Fresenius Kabi.
`
`B.
`
`Fresenius Kabi’s Duplication Costs Are Recoverable and Sufficiently Detailed
`
`Hospira contends that no explanation was provided for why Fresenius Kabi’s trial and
`
`deposition copying fees were reasonable or necessary. Hospira identified 4 out of 37 entries that
`
`it finds insufficiently detailed, and concludes that no costs should be awarded to Fresenius Kabi.
`
`But even the cases cited by Hospira awarded costs for copying and duplication for documents
`
`provided to the Court or to other parties in the case. (D.I. 188 at 4.) Hospira does not object to
`
`the cost of per-page copying, and so the only issue is whether the charges are sufficiently
`
`detailed. Fresenius Kabi’s Bill of Costs and Wallace Declaration details the reasonableness of
`
`those copying costs, and therefore they should be recovered.
`
`1.
`
`Fresenius Kabi’s Trial Copying Costs Should Be Awarded
`
`Hospira specifically objects to $6,263.82 worth of copies for four line items in its Bill of
`
`Costs. Hospira raises no objection to the remaining entries, but argues without explanation that
`
`they should also not be awarded. Fresenius Kabi’s Bill of Costs and accompanying papers detail
`
`precisely why each charge was necessary and reasonable.
`
`Hospira does not specifically object to the cost of witness binders and demonstratives,
`
`totaling $4,859.05. Fresenius Kabi’s Bill of Costs includes the costs for preparation of witness
`
`binders for each witness called at trial, either live or by video deposition. Consistent with local
`
`practice, Fresenius Kabi requested half its costs. Costs for this practice have been taxed in
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:6662
`
`similar cases. E.g., Smith v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 12-cv-8716, 2015 WL 2149552, at
`
`*7 (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2015). These reasonable and necessary costs should be taxed.
`
`Hospira also does not specifically object to the cost of Fresenius Kabi providing a single
`
`set of admitted exhibits and all demonstratives to the Court after trial, totaling $272.18. These
`
`copies were explicitly provided to the Court and not for the convenience of counsel. As such,
`
`they are taxable costs, even under Hospira’s cited cases.
`
`Hospira objects to four line items in Fresenius Kabi’s Bill of Costs for trial copying,
`
`totaling $6,263.82. The costs were for a single set of exhibits and expert reports to have in the
`
`court room, as indicated in the Bill of Costs, not copies of exhibits used off-site for convenience
`
`of counsel. These exhibits and expert reports were referenced liberally during daily motion
`
`practice, cross examination, and when referred to by witnesses during spontaneous testimony.
`
`Fresenius Kabi reasonably incurred the cost to have a single set of materials available for
`
`necessary use of counsel. Hospira’s objection that “it seems more reasonable to print copies ... as
`
`needed,” (D.I. 188 at 5), makes no sense because having a computer and printer in the courtroom
`
`would have been disruptive. These charges should be taxed against Hospira.
`
`2.
`
`Fresenius Kabi’s Deposition Copying Costs Should Be Taxed
`
`Hospira does not object to Fresenius Kabi’s detailed identification of costs associated
`
`with taking and defending depositions, but still asserts that all costs should be denied. None of
`
`the four line items identified as objectionable by Hospira relate to the costs identified in Section
`
`IV(C) and the accompanying documentation. (Compare D.I. 188 at 5 with D.I. 185 at 18-20.)
`
`The Bill of Costs and Wallace Declaration detail why the costs were reasonable and
`
`necessary, which Hospira does not address. (D.I. 185 at 18-20; D.I. 185-1, ¶13.) Fresenius Kabi
`
`halved its costs, and requests only the portion of costs for copies provided to the witness and
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:6663
`
`opposing and Amneal’s counsel. See LG Elecs. U.S.A. v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 18-cv-242, 2011
`
`WL 5008425, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2011). The full amount, $4,845.58, should be taxed.
`
`C.
`
`Fresenius Kabi’s Exemplification Costs Should Be Recovered
`
`Hospira takes the extraordinary position that Fresenius Kabi should not recover any of its
`
`exemplification costs, despite providing detailed invoices and case law supporting taxation of the
`
`costs. Hospira’s primary objection appears to be that Fresenius Kabi should have justified each
`
`line item on the accompanying invoices, an unreasonable request.
`
`The present case is like Interclaim Holdings, where this Court awarded costs for exhibit
`
`preparation and digital display of documents and presentations during trial. Interclaim Holdings
`
`Ltd. v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, No. 00-cv-7620, 2004 WL 557388, at *3-*4
`
`(N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2004). As noted in Interclaim Holdings, the Seventh Circuit has taken a broad
`
`view of the allowance for costs of exemplification in 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Id. at *3 (discussing
`
`Cefalu v. Village of Elk Grove, 211 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2000)). Just as in Interclaim Holdings,
`
`here Fresenius Kabi has provided detailed invoices that provide substantial detail of the work
`
`performed, hours expended, and materials produced for use at trial.
`
`Hospira’s objection—that the Bill of Costs does not justify the costs as reasonable and
`
`necessary—is incorrect. Fresenius Kabi’s Bill of Costs and Wallace Declaration provide specific
`
`justifications for the costs. (D.I. 185 at 20; D.I. 185-1 ¶ 14.) Hospira has not articulated why
`
`these explanations are insufficient.
`
`Hospira objects to time on the Blueprint invoice identified as “Graphic Consulting”
`
`because it was not time “actually preparing the exhibit.” (D.I. 188 at 6.) But the detailed invoice
`
`for “Graphic Consulting” shows that the time entries are specifically for “QC” or “quality
`
`control” of the actual exhibits and “revisions to slides,” which are taxable costs. (D.I. 185-14
`
`(Ex. 13) at 3.) Even the 2.75 hour entry for “Brainstorming of visual …” concludes with
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:6664
`
`“mocking up” an exhibit. (Id.) The costs incurred were reasonable and necessary, and fit within
`
`taxable exemplification costs in this Circuit.
`
`Hospira also seeks to exclude charges identified by trial consultant Ted Haw. Hospira
`
`agrees that the costs charged for Mr. Haw’s courtroom time during trial are recoverable. (See
`
`D.I. 188 at 6-7, quoting The Medicines Co. v. Mylan Inc., No. 11-cv-1285, 2017 WL 4882379, at
`
`*12 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2017).) As such, all time identified as “Operator” and “Courtroom Setup”
`
`totaling $5,100, should be taxed. (D.I. 185-14 at 5.) Hospira agrees in its Blueprint objections
`
`that charges related to the preparation of demonstratives and exhibits are also taxable. (D.I. 188
`
`at 6 (citing Medicines, 2017 WL 4882379, at *12).) Mr. Haw either created or edited every
`
`demonstrative presented in the case. For this reason, Mr. Haw’s time charged to “Trial
`
`Graphics/Demonstratives,” totaling $13,200, should be taxed against Hospira. (D.I. 185-14 at 4.)
`
`The only amount specifically disputed by Hospira is the remaining $18,600 charged by
`
`Mr. Haw for “Marking Exhibits” and “Trial Prep.” The charge for “Marking Exhibits,” totaling
`
`$3,150, was incurred creating the DTX-marked and paginated exhibits for trial. These materials
`
`were identified in the Pretrial Order and actually used at trial by both parties. The Court
`
`admitted many DTX exhibits. This charge was reasonable and necessary.
`
`The remaining time for “Trial Prep,” involved Mr. Haw’s consultation on the
`
`presentation of evidence and practice presenting materials for various witnesses. Mr. Haw
`
`reviewed outlines of examination to prepare exhibits and markings to enhance the presentation of
`
`evidence at trial. The “Trial Prep” time also included time creating the video deposition clips of
`
`Dr. Tata-Venkata and Dr. Sheinin that were played at trial, a recoverable cost. See Medicines,
`
`2017 WL 4882379, at *12 (“Clipping and syncing of deposition videos is a taxable cost.”). In
`
`sum, these costs were reasonably incurred, and allowable under prevailing law.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:6665
`
`Finally, Hospira objects to the taxation of costs for the e-brief submitted to the Court by
`
`Fresenius Kabi, which presents a question of first impression for the Court. The invoice for this
`
`cost was accidentally excluded from the original submission, but is attached as Exhibit 14 to this
`
`reply. This should assuage Hospira’s first objection.
`
`As for the substance of the cost, no cases within the Seventh Circuit address whether
`
`hyperlinked briefs, a new tool, are taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. However, the District Court
`
`for the Eastern District of California awarded costs for providing a hyperlinked version of the
`
`post-trial brief as equivalent to copying under § 1920(4). Sequoia Forestkeeper v. Elliott, No. 13-
`
`cv-1721, 2015 WL 5179069, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2015).1 In the past, Fresenius Kabi would
`
`have recovered the cost of providing the Court copies of its post-trial briefs, exhibits, and cited
`
`cases. Instead, Fresenius Kabi now seeks to use advances in technology to recover the cost for a
`
`digitally-linked version of the same materials. In Medicines, this Court granted costs under
`
`§ 1029(4) for a vendor to digitally process documents for trial presentation, which “made the
`
`exhibits and other demonstratives more digestible for the Court and sped up the trial process.”
`
`Medicines, 2017 WL 4882379, at *11; see also Cefalu, 211 F.3d at 428. Similarly, here the e-
`
`brief service digitally processes the briefs and exhibits to make them more digestible for the
`
`Court and to ease the opinion drafting process. Fresenius Kabi requests the Court tax the cost.
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Fresenius Kabi respectfully requests that the Court overrule and deny Hospira’s
`
`objections to the Bill of Costs submitted in this case, and tax Hospira $138,106.74.
`
`
`1 A district court case from New Jersey did not award costs for submission of an ebrief because
`of “the Third Circuit’s very narrow application of § 1920(4).” Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Roxane
`Labs., Inc., 2016 WL 1559144, at *13 (D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2016). The Seventh Circuit takes a much
`more expansive view of § 1920(4) than the Third Circuit, and so this decision is inapposite.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:6666
`
`
`
`Dated: February 7, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`_/s/ Joel M. Wallace____________________
`
`Imron T. Aly (IL Bar No. 6369322)
`Kevin M. Nelson (IL Bar No. 6275586)
`Joel M. Wallace (IL Bar No. 6304223)
`Tara L. Kurtis (IL Bar No. 6323880)
`233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7100
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`(312) 258-5500
`ialy@schiffhardin.com
`knelson@schiffhardin.com
`jwallace@schiffhardin.com
`tkurtis@schiffhardin.com
`
` Ahmed M.R. Riaz (pro hac vice)
`666 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
`New York, NY 10103
`(212) 753-5000
`ariaz@schiffhardin.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Fresenius Kabi USA,
`LLC
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:6667
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Summary of Requests and Disputes
`
`Requested Cost
`
`Requested
`Amount
`
`Amount
`Disputed
`
`FK Response
`
`Fees of the Clerk
`
`Pro Hac Vice
`
`$100.00
`
`$100.00
`
`Pro Hac Vice costs are taxable in this
`jurisdiction
`
`Trial and Hearing
`Transcripts
`
`Deposition Transcripts &
`Exhibits
`
`Deposition video
`
`$5,232.13
`
`$1,780.80
`
`Fees for Transcripts
`“Realtime” line item actually taxable
`daily transcripts
`Official exhibits and expedited
`transcripts were reasonable and
`necessary, and detail provided in request
`Videotaping depositions was reasonable
`at the time of deposition
`Fees and Disbursements for Witnesses
`
`$22,346.62
`
`$5,947.89
`
`$9,228.75
`
`$7,500.00
`
`Witness Fees, Subsistence,
`and Travel
`
`$8,943.58
`
`$0.00 No dispute
`
`Expert Discovery Costs
`
`$26,882.50 $10,300.00
`
`Fees solely for expert preparation are
`appropriate
`
`Fees for Exemplification, Copies, Printing
`
`TIFF and OCR
`
`$2,585.82
`
`$2,585.82
`
`Copying at Trial
`
`$11,215.05 $11,215.05
`
`$4,845.58
`
`$4,845.58
`
`Hospira provided no rationale for
`objection
`Hospira does not dispute per-page costs;
`FK sufficiently detailed costs
`Hospira provided no rationale for
`objection
`
`Copying for Depositions
`and Preparation
`Trial Exemplification and
`AV
`Hyperlinked Post-trial
`Brief
`
`TOTAL
`
`
`
`
`
`$42,003.75 $42,003.75 FK sufficiently detailed costs
`
`$4,722.95
`
`$4,722.95
`
`$138,106.74 $91,001.84
`
`
`Invoice has been provided; costs for e-
`brief should be taxable
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 194 Filed: 02/07/19 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:6668
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I, Joel M. Wallace, an attorney at the law firm of Schiff Hardin LLP, hereby certify that
`
`on February 7, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing FRESENIUS KABI’S
`
`REPLY TO HOSPIRA’S OBJECTIONS TO FRESENIUS KABI’S BILL OF COSTS and
`
`accompanying exhibit to be electronically served on counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF
`
`system.
`
`
`
` /s/ Joel M. Wallace
`Joel M. Wallace
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`