Jones v. County of El Dorado et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 1/22/2020 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART defendants' 66 Bill of Costs and AWARDING Defendants $7,427.31 in taxable costs. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TODD JONES,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-02128-JAM-KJN
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
BILL OF COSTS

The County of El Dorado, Teri Monterosso, and Timothy Pappas

16
17

(“Defendants”) request $8,929.71 in costs resulting from the

18

settlement of Todd Jones’ (“Plaintiff”) retaliation and defamation

19

claims against them.

20

costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and Local Rule 292(f).

21

Plaintiff opposes these costs, arguing that: (1) Plaintiff does not

22

owe costs for the defense of his Fair Employment and Housing Act

23

(“FEHA”) claims; (2) Catherine Goddard was not deposed in this

24

case; and (3) Erin Hane’s travel costs should not be included.

25

the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN

26

PART Defendants’ bill of costs.1

27
28

Bill of Costs, ECF No. 66.

Defendants seek
Id.

For

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for January 14, 2020.
1

1

1
2

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 13, 2017, Plaintiff sued Defendants for employment

3

discrimination under 42. U.S.C. § 2000e, discrimination and

4

retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, discrimination and retaliation

5

under FEHA, and defamation.

6

commenced two years later.

7

trial, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his discrimination claims

8

under both federal and state law.

9

proceeded on the retaliation and defamation claims.

See Compl., ECF No. 1.
See ECF No. 61.

Trial

On the first day of

Bill of Costs at 2.

The case

Id.

Just

10

before the conclusion of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, the parties

11

settled.

12

and Defendants were deemed the prevailing party for the purposes of

13

recovering costs.

14

are “entitled to recover their taxable costs up to a maximum of

15

$8,500.”

16

Defendants submitted their bill of costs fourteen days later.

17

ECF No. 66.

18

Objections, ECF No. 67.

See ECF No. 65.

Id.

The case was dismissed with prejudice

Per the settlement agreement, Defendants

Trial Transcript (“Trial Tr.”) ¶ 2, November 1, 2019.

Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ bill of costs.

See
See

19
20

II.

OPINION

21

A.

Legal Standard

22

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

23

party to be awarded taxable costs other than attorneys’ fees.

24

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

Taxed costs may include the following:

25

(1)

Fees of the clerk and marshal;

26

(2)

Fees for printed or electronically recorded

27

transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the

28

case;
2

Fed.

1

(3)

Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;

2

(4)

Fees for exemplification and the costs of making

3

copies of any materials where the copies are

4

necessarily obtained for use in the case;

5

(5)

Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;

6

(6)

Compensation of court appointed experts,

7

compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees,

8

expenses, and costs of special interpretation

9

services under section 1828 of this title.

10

28 U.S.C. § 1920(1)-(6).

Federal courts are bound by the

11

limitations set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1821 and § 1920 when taxing

12

expenses as costs.

13

482 U.S. 437, 445 (1987).

Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.,

14

While the rule creates a presumption of awarding costs to a

15

prevailing party, district courts have discretion in determining

16

whether and to what extent prevailing parties may be awarded costs.

17

Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d

18

572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

19

not unlimited.

20

refusal to award costs.”

21

citation omitted).

22

is not ordinary and why, in the circumstances, it would be

23

inappropriate or inequitable to award costs.”

24

quotations marks and citation omitted).

25

burden of providing such reasons to the court.

26

of Regents of the Univ. of Cal. At Davis, 566 F.Supp.2d 1168, 1171

27

(E.D. Cal 2008).

28

However, “this discretion is

A district court must specify reasons for its
Id. at 592 (internal quotation marks and

The reasons specified must “explain why a case

Id. at 593 (internal

The losing party bears the
Mansourian v. Bd.

Reasons for refusing to award costs to a prevailing party
3

1

include: (1) the losing party’s limited financial resources;

2

(2) misconduct on the part of the prevailing party; (3) the

3

chilling effect of imposing such high costs on future civil rights

4

litigants; (4) whether the issues in the case were close and

5

difficult; (5) whether the prevailing party’s recovery was nominal

6

or partial; (6) whether the losing party litigated in good faith;

7

and (7) whether the case presented issues of national importance.

8

Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., 623 F.3d 870, 888–89 (9th Cir.

9

2010) (citation omitted).

However, this is not “an exhaustive list

10

of good reasons for declining costs.”

Ass’n of Mexican-Am.

11

Educators, 231 F.3d at 593 (internal quotation marks omitted).

12

B.

Analysis

13

As an initial matter, it is undisputed that Defendants are the

14

prevailing party, see ECF No. 65 (“[D]efendants were deemed the

15

prevailing party for the purposes of recovering costs.”), and their

16

request for taxable costs was timely.

17

(specifying that a bill of costs must be filed within 14 days of

18

the entry of judgment); ECF No. 64 (case settled on November 1,

19

2019); ECF No. 66 (bill of costs submitted on November 15, 2019).

20

However, their recoverable taxable costs are capped at $8,500.

21

Trial Tr. ¶ 2.

22

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 292(b)

Defendants request reimbursement for money spent on

23

depositions, copying materials, and witness travel.

Bill of Costs

24

at 2–5.

25

Generally, the assessment of taxable costs “is merely a clerical

26

matter that can be done by the court clerk.”

27

Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560, 573 (2012) (quoting Hairline Creations,

28

Inc. v. Kefalas, 664 F.2d 652, 656 (7th Cir. 1981)).

These costs are taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1821 and § 1920.

4

Taniguchi v. Kan Pac.

Accordingly,

1

the Court will not use its limited resources to sift through

2

Defendants’ undisputed taxable cost submissions when the Local

3

Rules designate authority to tax costs to the Clerk.

4

L.R. 292.

5

only on Plaintiff’s disputed costs.

6
7

E.D. Cal.

The Court’s consideration of costs, thus, will focus

1.

Defense of FEHA Claims

Plaintiff objects to owing costs for either of the FEHA

8

claims.

Objections at 2.

Plaintiff argues that, for claims

9

related to FEHA violations, a prevailing defendant may only recover

10

costs where the court makes a finding that the action was

11

“frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.”

12

§ 12965(b); Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., 186

13

Cal. Rptr. 3d 976, 981–88(2015).

14

a frivolity requirement for defendants to recover costs in

15

defending FEHA violations.

16

But Plaintiff misses a meaningful distinction between Williams and

17

the case at hand.

18

Plaintiff’s claims are in federal court.

19

Id. (citing Gov’t. Code

Williams does, in fact, establish

See Williams, 186 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 988.

Williams was in state court.

Whereas

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that “costs—

20

other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing

21

party,” unless “a federal statute, these rules, or a court order

22

provides otherwise.”

23

standard costs in federal district court is normally governed by

24

this rule, even in diversity cases.

25

695 F.Supp.2d 1014, 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Champion Produce,

26

Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003))

27

(internal quotation marks omitted).

28

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

An award of

Drumm v. Morningstar, Inc.,

An exception to this is when an award of costs is substantive
5

1

in nature.

Clausen v. M/V New Carissa, 339 F.3d 1049, 1064-65 (9th

2

Cir. 2003).

When, for example, a damages provision under state law

3

permits prevailing plaintiffs to recover costs as an element of

4

compensatory damages, courts deem costs to be part of the

5

underlying substantive right.

6

the proper measure of damages is inseparably connected with the

7

right of action,” and costs are included in the damages provision,

8

costs also become a substantive right.

Id. at 1065 (internal

9

quotation marks and citation omitted).

And when a federal court is

Id.

Moreover, when “the question of

10

presented with a choice between a federal cost provision and a

11

state damages provision that includes costs, the substantive state

12

law prevails.

13

Id. at 1064.

But costs are not included as an element of damages for a FEHA

14

claim because the law has no substantive damages provision.

15

State Dep't of Health Servs. v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 4th 1026,

16

1042 (2003) (“FEHA permits individual suits for damages to enforce

17

its provisions, but it does not specify what damages are

18

recoverable.”).

19

and federal law governs.

20

(where the Northern District found that costs were procedural and

21

federal law governed when costs were not included as an element of

22

damages for an unpaid wage claim under California law).

23

See

Accordingly, costs are not substantive in nature
See Drumm, 695 F.Supp.2d at 1026–27

As further support that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)

24

governs, the Ninth Circuit has applied this Rule to determine

25

whether costs were appropriately awarded in cases involving FEHA

26

violations.

27

(9th Cir. 2019) (where plaintiff alleged FEHA violations along with

28

other state-law based claims and the court applied Federal Rule of

See Mauran v. Walmart Inc., 786 Fed.Appx. 671, 675

6

1

Civil Procedure 54(d) in deciding the district court abused its

2

discretion in awarding costs to Walmart); Stanley v. University of

3

Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 1999) (where

4

plaintiff alleged FEHA violations along with violations of federal

5

statutes and other state law-based claims and the court applied

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) in deciding the district

7

court abused its discretion in awarding costs to USC).

8
9

In sum, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) governs.

The

Court is not required to reduce Defendants’ award of costs to

10

account for the FEHA claims that remained at the time of trial and

11

therefore declines to reduce Defendants’ award of costs for this

12

reason.

13

2.

14

Catherine Goddard’s Deposition

Plaintiff objects to owing costs for the deposition of witness

15

Catherine Goddard.

16

plaintiff in her own case against Defendants.

17

Plaintiff argues this cost is not recoverable in his case.

18

2.

19

responsible for the cost of a deposition that was taken in a

20

separate case.

21

the instant case is of no consequence.

22

deposition may be recoverable at the conclusion of her case against

23

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28

Objections at 1–2.

The Court agrees.

Goddard was deposed as the
Id.

Accordingly,
Id. at

It would be inequitable to hold Plaintiff

The fact that Goddard’s deposition was utilized in
The cost of Goddard’s

Thus, the Court denies Defendants $1,502.40 in costs for the
deposition of Catherine Goddard.
3.

Erin Hane’s Airfare

Plaintiff objects to owing costs for the airfare of witness
Erin Hane.

Objections at 2.

Plaintiff argues that he should not
7

1

be responsible for the cost of Hane’s airfare as she was never

2

called to testify.

3

Sacramento prepared to testify on November 1, 2019.

Bill of Costs

4

at 4.

But the trial

5

had been ongoing, and Plaintiff was on the verge of resting his

6

case-in-chief.

7

witness on hand.

8
9

Id.

The Court disagrees.

The case settled unexpectedly that day.

Hane flew to

Id.

It was entirely reasonable for Defendants to have a

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants $627.96 in costs for
witness Erin Hane’s airfare.

10
11
12

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and

13

DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Bill of Costs and awards Defendants

14

$7,427.31 in taxable costs.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

January 22, 2020

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8