Niesen v. Garcia et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 8/8/2016 ORDERING that costs be taxed to the plaintiff in the amount of FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTEEN DOLLARS AND FIFTY-FIVE CENTS ($4,616.55) re 32 Bill of Costs Submitted. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

THERESA MARIE NIESEN,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Civ. No. 2:14-2921 WBS CKD
ORDER

v.
L. GARCIA, YOLO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPUTY; J. CEJA,
YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTY;
J. LAZARO, YOLO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPUTY; M. NEVIS,
YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTY;
OFFICER BIGELOW, ANIMAL
CONTROL OFFICER FOR YOLO
COUNTY; YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; YOLO COUNTY
PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and
Does 1 through 50, et al.,

21

Defendants.

22
----oo0oo----

23

Judgment was entered in favor of defendants on July 12,

24
25

2016.

(Docket No. 31.)

On July 13, 2016, defendants submitted a

26

Bill of Costs pursuant to Local Rule 292(b).

27

Defendants claim costs of $4,616.55 for obtaining printed and

28

electronic copies of witness deposition transcripts and related
1

(Docket No. 32.)

1

exhibits for use in this case.

2

to the costs pursuant to Local Rule 292(c).

3

(Id.)

Plaintiff has not objected

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

4

taxation of costs and provides that “costs--other than attorney’s

5

fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.”

6

P. 54(d)(1).

7

taxable and allows for the recovery of “[f]ees for printed or

8

electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use

9

in the case,” id. § 1920(2), and “the costs of making copies of

10

any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use

11

in the case,” id. § 1920(4).

12

‘encompassed’ by section 1920(2), and is therefore properly

13

taxed” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

14

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

15

section 1920(4) enables a court to award copying costs for any

16

document ‘necessarily obtained for use in the case’ and does not

17

specifically require that the copied document be introduced into

18

the record to be an allowable cost.”

19

Rainbow Gourmet Ice Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir.

20

1990).

21

Fed. R. Civ.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1920 enumerates which costs are

“The cost of deposition copies is

Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters
“[28 U.S.C.]

Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Double

Given that defendants are the prevailing parties in

22

this case, the court has discretion to allow for their “recovery

23

of deposition costs and copying costs.”

24

Inc. v. Lu-Mar Lobster & Shrimp, Inc., 260 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th

25

Cir. 2001); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 292(f).

26

a presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties,

27

and it is incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the

28

costs should not be awarded.”

See Sea Coast Foods,

“Rule 54(d) creates

Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178
2

1

F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999).

2

Bill of Costs and in light of the fact that plaintiff has not

3

objected, the court finds that defendants’ claimed costs of

4

$4,616.55 are reasonable here.

5
6

Accordingly, costs of $4,616.55 will be taxed to
plaintiff.

7
8

After reviewing defendants’

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 8, 2016

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3