Awarded Costs Constrained By Federal Rules And Regional Circuit Law
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.09.06
In Summit Technology, Inc. v. Nidek Co., Ltd. (No. 05-1292; January 26, 2006), a Federal Circuit panel modifies the district court's award of costs, remanding the case to the lower court for entry of the modified award. At issue are the constraints of § 1920 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dealing with taxation of specified costs, as applied under First Circuit law. The panel determines that video animations are not “exemplifications” as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Reviewing a variety of cases and Blacks Law Dictionary, which defines “exemplifications” as “[a]n official transcript of a public record, authenticated as true copy for use as evidence”, the panel determines that the First Circuit would adopt a narrow definition of “exemplifications” and refuse to allow recovery for video animations. The panel also reduces the lower court's award of photocopy and deposition costs as these portions of the award are not deemed properly supported by the evidentiary record.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
