In Kuznyetsov v. West Penn Allegheny Health System Inc., No. 10-948 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2014), the plaintiffs sought review of a clerk’s order requiring them to pay the prevailing defendant over $60,000 in costs under Rule 54(d)(1).  With respect to e-discovery costs, the plaintiffs first argued that the costs associated with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) were unnecessary and not appropriately taxed.  The district court rejected this argument because the plaintiffs requested that information be produced in OCR format and “[t]he scanning and conversion of native files to the agreed-upon format for production of ESI constitutes ‘making copies of materials’” under the bill of costs statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).  Plaintiffs next argued that the costs associated with scanning documents and converting them into Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) were unreasonably high.  The court held that 5 cents per page for TIFF conversion and 24 cents per page to scan paper documents were reasonable rates.  The court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the assessment of costs in this employment-related case was inequitable:  “Every litigant is presumed to have considered and weighed the risks [of litigation], including the payment of costs if the litigant does not prevail.”