for copying the numerous exhibits that they introduced at trial. Under the costs statute, however, plaintiffs may not recover the photocopy expenses that they incurred in copying their own pleadings and motions for filing with the Court, serving on opposing counsel, or transmitting to their clients; nor does the cost statute cover a party’s copying of documents to be produced in discovery, or copying research materials for the convenience of counsel. These are not taxable costs under the statute, because they are not copies of papers “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” See McIlveen v. Stone Container Corp., 910 F.2d 1581, 1584 (7th Cir.1990); Thomas v. Treasury Management Ass’n, 158 F.R.D. 364, 372 (D.Md.1994); cf. Jones v. Unisys Corp., 54 F.3d 624, 633 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Because plaintiffs have failed to segregate
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for additional funds where defendant had not shown exhaustion of the 500 granted holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying inter alia costs for internal copying of documents by prevailing defendants counsel produced for discovery holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification