Martinez v. City of Clovis, et al.

Filing 223

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/26/2022 ORDERING 212 the Court reduces the deposition transcript costs by one-fourth, from $2,083.20 to $1,562.40, to account for their share of the costs. That, plus the $315.25 cost for the summary judgment hearing transcript, incurred after Defendants Santillan and Salazar were dismissed, amounts to $1,877.65. For the reasons set forth, the Court awards costs to Defendants in the amount of $1,877.65. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

DESIREE MARTINEZ,

14

No.

1:15-cv-00683-JAM-SKO

Plaintiff,

15

v.

16

CITY OF CLOVIS, et al.

17

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS CITY
OF CLOVIS, CITY OF SANGER,
HERSHBERGER, YAMBUPAH, SANDERS
AND HIGH’S BILL OF COSTS

18
The City of Sanger, the City of Clovis, Officers

19
20

Hershberger, Yambupah, Sanders, and High (“Defendants”) request

21

$14,999.66 in costs after the Court granted summary judgment in

22

their favor.

23

(“Plaintiff”) opposed awarding many of these costs.

24

ECF No. 213.

25

part and denies in part Defendants’ bill of costs.1

Bill of Costs, ECF No. 212.

Desiree Martinez
See Opp’n,

For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for March 15, 2022.
1
1

1
2

I.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2015, Plaintiff sued Defendants, among others, for their

3

handling of her domestic abuse complaints.

First. Am. Compl.,

4

ECF No. 6.

5

judgment, which the Court granted in part and denied in part.

6

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Mot. for Summ. J., ECF

7

No. 94.

8

City of Clovis, the City of Sanger, Hershberger, Yambupah, and

9

Sanders.

In August 2017, Defendants moved for summary

Specifically, the Court granted summary judgment to the

Id. at 2.

With respect to High, the Court granted

10

summary judgment on the Equal Protection claim but denied summary

11

judgment on the Due Process claim.

12

grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Clovis, the

13

City of Sanger, Hershberger, Yambupah, and Sanders, which the

14

Ninth Circuit affirmed.

15

Thereafter, Defendant High again moved for summary judgment on

16

the Due Process claim.

17

The Court granted High’s renewed motion.

18

Renewed Mot. for Summ. J, ECF No. 210.

19

submitted this bill of costs.

20

Id.

Plaintiff appealed the

Ninth Circuit Order, ECF No. 123.

High’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 206.

II.

Order Granting High’s

Defendants subsequently

OPINION

21

A.

Legal Standard

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) allows for a

23

prevailing party to be awarded taxable costs other than

24

attorneys’ fees.

25

presumption that costs will be taxed against the losing party,

26

but “vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award

27

costs” if the losing party shows why costs should not be

28

awarded.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).

This rule creates a

Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of California,
2

1

231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

2

district court must ‘specify reasons’ for its refusal to tax

3

costs to the losing party [the Ninth Circuit has] never held

4

that a district court must specify reasons for its decision to

5

abide the presumption and tax costs to the losing party.”

6

Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)

7

(internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

8
9

“Although a

Save

28 U.S.C. § 1920 generally defines the expenses that may be
taxed as costs under Rule 54(d).

See Crawford Fitting Co. v.

10

J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987).

11

U.S.C. § 1920, a judge or court clerk may tax as costs: fees of

12

the clerk and marshal; fees for printed or electronically

13

recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;

14

fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; fees for

15

copies of necessary papers; docket fees; and compensation of

16

court appointed experts.

17

B.

18
19

Pursuant to 28

28 U.S.C § 1920.

Analysis
1.

Transcripts

Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts are

20

recoverable so long as they were “necessarily obtained for use

21

in the case.”

22

offered as evidence to have been necessarily obtained for use in

23

the case.

24

Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir. 1990).

25

depositions “merely useful for discovery” are not taxable “and

26

their expense should have been borne by the party taking them,

27

as incidental to normal preparation for trial.”

28

Works, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 322 F.2d 656, 678 (9th Cir.

28 U.S.C. 1920(2).

A document need not be

Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice

3

However,

Indep. Iron

1

1963).

“When a deposition is not actually used at trial or as

2

evidence on some successful preliminary motion, whether its

3

costs may be taxed generally is determined by deciding if the

4

deposition reasonably seemed necessary at the time it was

5

taken.”

6

Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2676 (4th ed. 2022).

7

Defendants seek $3,398.90 in deposition transcript

10 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay

8

expenses, $5,126.67 for the cost of the transcript of a related

9

criminal proceeding, $315.25 for the summary judgment hearing

10

transcript, and $260.50 for the cost of transcribing a telephone

11

recording.

12

the depositions of Plaintiff, Kristina Hershberger, Angela

13

Yambupah, Kyle Pennington, and Channon High – which were used in

14

their summary judgment motions.

15

the remaining $7,018.07, on the grounds that Defendants have not

16

shown why those materials reasonably seemed necessary at the

17

time.

18

for why these other depositions and transcripts seemed necessary

19

at the time.

20

summary judgment hearing transcript, which was also used in a

21

dispositive motion.

22

ECF No. 206-3.

23

for depositions and transcripts from $9,101.32 to $2,398.45.

24
25

Id.

Plaintiff disputes all but $2,083.20 – the costs for

The Court agrees.

2.

Opp’n at 3.

Plaintiff opposes

Defendants offer no explanation

However, the Court will allow $315.25 for the

Ex. A. to Def. High’s Motion for Summ. J.,

The Court therefore reduces the taxable costs

Witness Fees

Section 1821(b) limits witness fees, other than court-

26

appointed experts, to “an attendance fee of $40 per day” at a

27

deposition or trial, plus other travel expenses where

28

applicable.

Here, Defendants seek $1,255 in witness fees.
4

1

Because they have not indicated their witness costs with

2

sufficient specificity for the Court to determine which costs

3

are allowable as attendance fees, travel expenses, or

4

subsistence allowances the Court does not grant Defendants these

5

costs.

6

3.

Other Costs

7

Defendants also seek reimbursement for $1,833.34 in

8

mediation expenses, $292.81 for Federal Express expenses, and

9

$2,525.22 for the costs of obtaining files from another

10

attorney.

11

explanation for why such fees are taxable as costs.

12

Accordingly, the Court declines to award this additional

13

$4,651.37.

14

However, Defendants do not offer any authority or

4.

15

Final Reductions

As explained above, the Court finds Defendants are entitled

16

to $2,398.45 in costs.

However, Defendants Jesus Santillan and

17

Ralph Salazar were dismissed in June 2017, conditioned upon a

18

mutual waiver of costs and fees.

19

Defs. Santillan and Salazar, ECF No. 70.

20

reduces the deposition transcript costs by one-fourth, from

21

$2,083.20 to $1,562.40, to account for their share of the costs.

22

That, plus the $315.25 cost for the summary judgment hearing

23

transcript, incurred after Defendants Santillan and Salazar were

24

dismissed, amounts to $1,877.65.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

Stip. and Order Dismissing

5

Accordingly, the Court

1
2
3
4
5

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court awards costs to
Defendants in the amount of $1,877.65.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 26, 2022

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6