Baldhosky v. Hubbard et al

Filing 282

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 03/08/22 GRANTING 280 Request to Seal; plaintiff's submission of his financial statement is SEALED; GRANTING 273 Motion to Re-Tax Costs ; DENYING defendants' Bill of Costs. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYMOND BALDHOSKY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:12-cv-1200 (PC)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION RE COSTS
TAXED

v.
ECF No. 273
SUSAN HUBBARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS
ECF No. 280

17
18

This matter is before the court to consider whether it is appropriate for plaintiff, a former

19

state prisoner with a permanent disability, to pay costs to the state on behalf of defendants, who

20

provided medical care and access to care for plaintiff while imprisoned. Plaintiff moves for court

21

review of 7,672.44 dollars of costs taxed against him. ECF No. 273; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

54(d); Local Rule 292(e). Defendants have filed an opposition, ECF No. 276, and plaintiff has

23

replied, ECF No. 277. On August 12, 2021, the court heard arguments on this motion, and the

24

parties were allowed to submit additional briefing. ECF Nos. 280,1 281. This matter is ripe for

25

review.

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also seeks to seal financial documents. ECF No. 280. That request is
unopposed, and the court will grant it.
1

1

Plaintiff is a wheelchair-bound paraplegic individual who alleged that defendants

2

provided inadequate treatment that led to pressure sores and infections. He alleged medical

3

deliberate indifference claims against defendants, and the case culminated in a six-day trial, with

4

testimony from plaintiff, David Patterson, Tara Godoy, Angel Gonzalez, Teresa Grossi, Amanda

5

Kaylor, Dianna Machelle Dunn, Carrie Indendi, Thomas Nguyen, Lance Peters, Julius Metts,

6

Timothy Byers, Isabel Ruff, and John Fullerton. The jury deliberated for more than two hours

7

before rendering a verdict for defendants. ECF No. 263. Defendants now seek trial preparation

8

costs in the amount of 7,672.44 dollars for taking fourteen depositions in preparation for trial.

9
10

Discussion
Rule 54(d) governs the award of costs and creates a presumption in favor of awarding

11

costs to the prevailing party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d); Ass’n of Mex.-Am. Educators v.

12

California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (Rule 54(d) “creates a presumption in

13

favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party, but vests in the district court the discretion to refuse

14

to award costs.”). “Generally, a district court has discretion to deny a prevailing party’s request

15

for an award of taxable costs but must specify its reasons for denying such a request.” Baker v.

16

Cottrell, Inc., 831 F. App’x 246, 249 (9th Cir. 2020) (upholding denial of costs for the prevailing

17

party by district court for failure to follow procedures in the local rules) (citing Berkla v. Corel

18

Corp., 302 F.3d 909, 921 (9th Cir. 2002)). The reasons for denying costs to a prevailing party are

19

not finite. For example, in denying costs, district courts can consider plaintiff’s limited financial

20

resources, the economic disparity between parties, and the potential chilling effect on similar

21

actions in the future. Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247-48 (9th Cir.

22

2014); see P.N. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 474 F.3d 1165, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[F]actual

23

findings underlying the district court’s decision are reviewed for clear error.”). District courts

24

may also consider “the complexity of the case, [plaintiff]’s good faith in asserting her claims, the

25

parties’ conduct during the course of litigation, and the nominal relief awarded to [defendant].”

26

Mau v. Mitsunaga & Assocs., 742 F. App’x 279, 280 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks

27

omitted).

28
2

1

Here, defendants are the prevailing party and enjoy the presumption in favor of awarding

2

costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Plaintiff, however, has limited financial resources as shown in his

3

sealed financial disclosures. ECF No. 280. Defendants argue that plaintiff’s financial

4

documentation is not detailed enough to assess whether the award of costs will render him

5

indigent. I disagree. Plaintiff has shown that he has debt and that his expenses are greater than

6

his income. Additionally, there is great financial disparity between the parties. These reasons are

7

sufficient to find that costs should be denied.

8

Conclusion

9

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:

10

1.

Plaintiff’s request to seal, ECF No. 280, is granted and his submission of his

11

financial statement is sealed. Only court personnel and defense counsel are permitted access to

12

the sealed records. This order is to remain in effect.

13
14

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to re-tax costs, ECF No. 273, is granted, and defendants’ bill of

costs is denied.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
Dated:

March 8, 2022

18

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21

3.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3