that the $128.68 is to reimburse Defendant for “necessary travel” involving three trips taken by Defendant’s counsel, Susan K. Burkhart, one trip taken by an individual named “Cathi J. Hunt”, and one trip taken by an individual named “Leigh Ann G. Smith.” To the extent that Defendant attempts to recoup the travel'expenses of its counsel, it is the Court’s determination that this expense is not taxable. Pursuant to Local Rule 54.1(c)(2)(ii), the transportation costs for real parties of interest are not taxable costs. N.C.M.D. Local R. 54.1(c)(2)(ii). Accordingly, given that the transportation costs for the parties are not normally taxable costs, the Court concludes that similar transportation costs ir.1995); Leftwich v. Harris-Stowe State Coll., 702 F.2d 686, 695 (8th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). The Court therefore finds that Defendant’s
holding that attorneys fees would include expenses for computerized legal research and thus not allowing computerized legal research as a separate taxable cost holding that the costs of computerized research was a component of attorneys fees that cannot be independently taxed as an item of cost holding the district court properly allowed guardian ad litem fees to be taxed as costs holding that the costs of computerized research should be characterized not as taxable costs but as attorneys fees holding that computeraided research like any other form of legal research is a component of attorneys fees and cannot be independently taxed as an item of cost in addition to the attorneys fee award