The Asis Internet saga continues.  Asis brought claims against Azoogle in the Northern District of California.  The court granted summary judgment in favor of Azoogle on the basis that Asis lacked standing and lacked sufficient evidence to take the underlying violations to a jury [link].  This judgment is currently on appeal.

Azoogle filed for costs (not including attorney's fees) which were roughly $35,000.  Asis contested the costs and moved for stay.

The court first denied the request to stay enforcement of the costs while the appeal is pending.  This is going to hurt Asis.  Practically this means tht Azoogle can commence actual collections efforts against Asis (e.g., seize and auction off its stuff). 

The court then turns to the issue of propriety of costs.  First it determines that Azoogle is entitled to costs under CAN-SPAM.  Under the Federal Rules, a prevailing party is entitled to an award as a matter of course.  There's nothing in CAN-SPAM (that the court found) which precludes an award of costs in these instances.  The court does cite to Virtumundo and its conclusion that the "Fogerty" standard applied to requests for fees in CAN-SPAM cases.  Fogerty requires neutrality among prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants (in contrast to section 1983, for example, which heavily favors prevailing plaintiffs). (Question as to why Azoogle didn't move for fees, as well as costs?  My thought is that a different standard applies to fees and the chances of getting fees are less.  The court's analysis isn't crystal clear on the fees/cost distinction.)

As to the actual costs themselves, there's a bit of typical squabbling bout the propriety of certain line items.  Probably uninteresting reading, but invaluable for someone who wants to get a sense of the costs that go into litigation.  Note:  this motion is about costs, the fees were probably in excess of $150,000.

[Asis Internet Services v. Optin Global, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. C-05-5124 (Dec. 17, 2008)] [h/t Prof. Goldman]