Keehner v. Jackson Laboratory

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 6/15/12 ORDERING that costs of $6,295.07 will be allowed. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

KELLY KEEHNER,

13

NO. CIV. 2:11-1954 WBS EFB

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: COSTS

14
15
16

v.
THE JACKSON LABORATORY, a
Corporation of unknown origin;
and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,

17
Defendant.
18

/

19
----oo0oo----

20

On May 22, the court granted defendant’s motion for

21
22

summary judgment (Docket No. 27), and final judgment was entered

23

in the case.

24

$6,295.07.

25

defendant’s bill of costs.

26

Defendant has submitted a cost bill totaling

(Docket No. 29.)

Plaintiff did not object to

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

27

and Local Rule 292 govern the taxation of costs to losing

28

parties, which are generally subject to limits set under 28
1

1

U.S.C. § 1920.

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“Unless a federal statute, these rules,

3

or a court order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney’s

4

fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.”); E.D. Cal.

5

Local R. 292(f); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482

6

U.S. 437, 441 (1987) (limiting taxable costs to those enumerated

7

in § 1920).

8
9

See 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (enumerating taxable costs);

The court exercises its discretion in determining
whether to allow certain costs.

See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

10

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court has

11

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

12

the meaning of § 1920); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc.,

13

914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990) (same).

14

the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of awarding

15

costs to the prevailing party.

16

Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 1998)

17

(noting that the presumption “may only be overcome by pointing to

18

some impropriety on the part of the prevailing party”); Amarel,

19

102 F.3d at 1523; see also E.D. Local R. 54-292(d) (“If no

20

objection is filed, the Clerk shall proceed to tax and enter

21

costs.”).

22

The losing party has

See Russian River Watershed Prot.

After reviewing the bill of costs, and in light of the

23

fact that plaintiff has not objected, the court finds the

24

following costs to be reasonable:

25

Fees of the Clerk:

$745.00

26

Fees for service of summons and subpoena:

$545.50

27

Fees for printed or electronically

28

recorded transcripts necessarily obtained
2

1

for use in the case:

$4,525.05

2

Fees for witnesses:

$80.00

3

Fees for exemplification and the costs

4

of making copies of any materials where

5

the copies are necessarily obtained for

6

use in the case:

$399.52

7

Total

$6,295.07

8

Accordingly, costs of $6,295.07 will be allowed.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

DATED:

June 15, 2012

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3