The Court will therefore reduce Defendant’s Bill of Costs by the entire $128.68 that Defendant attributed to necessary travel expenses for Ms. Burkhart, Ms. Hunt, and Ms. Smith. D. Westlaw Expenses Plaintiffs also object to Defendant’s inclusion of $164.45 on its Bill of Costs that it attributed to “compensation for Westlaw usage.” (Def.’s Application of Costs at 1.) In reviewing Plaintiffs’ objection, the Court first notes that the cost of legal research services is not listed as an allowable expense in either the Local Rules or 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Furthermore, the Court finds that the cost of legal research is more properly characterized as a component of attorneys’ fees, not as a taxable cost of litigation. United States v. Merritt Meridian Constr. Corp., 95 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Haroco, Inc. v. Am. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
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 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 holding that the costs of computerized research was a component of attorneys fees that cannot be independently taxed as an item of cost holding that based on leftwich the law of this circuit is that computerbased legal research must be factored into the attorneys hourly rate hence the cost of the computer time may not be added to the fee award holding that the costs of computerized research should be characterized not as taxable costs but as attorneys fees