Landeros et al v. Schafer et al

Filing 147

ORDER RE: BILL OF COSTS signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/21/22 ALLOWING costs of $6,804.10 will be allowed for defendants and are taxed against plaintiff. (Benson, A.)

Case 2:17-cv-02598-WBS-CKD Document 147 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

JENNIFER LANDEROS, individually
and as successor in interest to
DANIEL LANDEROS, Deceased; DEJA
LANDEROS, individually and as
successor in interest to DANIEL
LANDEROS, Deceased; B.M.L.,
individually and as successor in
interest to DANIEL LANDEROS,
Deceased, by and through
JENNIFER LANDEROS, as Guardian
ad Litem; J.J.L., individually
and as successor in interest to
DANIEL LANDEROS, Deceased, by
and through JENNIFER LANDEROS,
as Guardian ad Litem; D.F.L.,
individually and as successor in
interest to DANIEL LANDEROS,
Deceased, by and through
JENNIFER LANDEROS, as Guardian
ad Litem; and T.D.L.,
individually and as successor in
interest to DANIEL LANDEROS,
Deceased, by and through
JENNIFER LANDEROS, as Guardian
ad Litem,

27
28

ORDER RE: BILL OF COSTS

Plaintiffs,

25
26

No. 2:17-cv-02598 WBS CKD

v.
SAMUEL SCHAFER; STEVEN HOLSTAD;
JUSTIN PARKER; PATRICK SCOTT;
JEREMY BANKS; and CITY OF ELK
1

Case 2:17-cv-02598-WBS-CKD Document 147 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 6
1

GROVE,

2

Defendants.

3
----oo0oo----

4

Defendants have filed a bill of costs, and plaintiffs

5
6

have filed objections.

(Docket Nos. 116, 118.)1

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

7
8

and Local Civil Rule 54.1 govern the taxation of costs, which are

9

generally subject to limits set under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

See 28

10

U.S.C. § 1920 (enumerating taxable costs); Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

54(d)(1) (“Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court

12

order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney’s fees--

13

should be allowed to the prevailing party.”); Crawford Fitting

14

Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 440-45 (1987) (limiting

15

taxable costs to those enumerated in § 1920).
The court exercises its discretion in determining

16
17

whether to allow certain costs.

18

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1996) (district court has discretion to

19

determine what constitutes a taxable cost within the meaning of §

20

1920).

21

presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party.

22

See Russian River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa,

23

142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the presumption

24

“may only be overcome by pointing to some impropriety on the part

25

of the prevailing party”); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523.

26

I.

27
28

See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

The losing party has the burden of overcoming the

Plaintiffs’ Request to Deny All Costs

Defendants have also filed a reply withdrawing their
request for certain costs. (Docket No. 119.)
2
1

Case 2:17-cv-02598-WBS-CKD Document 147 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 6
1

Plaintiffs argue that the court should exercise its

2

discretion to deny all costs because of (1) the “important

3

constitutional protections” presented by the case and the fact

4

that it was litigated in good faith; (2) the financial disparity

5

between the parties and plaintiffs’ limited financial means, and

6

(3) the potential chilling effect on future litigation if costs

7

are granted.

8

The court first notes that financial disparity alone is

9

insufficient to deny costs, given that even plaintiffs proceeding

10

in forma pauperis are not per se protected from taxation of

11

costs.

See Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir.

12

1994).

The court recognizes that plaintiff Jennifer Landeros is

13

a single mother supporting her five children, who are also

14

plaintiffs in this case.

15

assertion that Ms. Landeros earns less than $1,000 a month and

16

“can barely support herself and her children with her limited

17

income and limited Social Security,” without any supporting

18

documentation.

19

and plaintiffs’ alleged limited financial means are not

20

sufficient to disallow costs in this case.

21

City of San Diego, No. 13-cv-2279-JAH(JMA), 2016 WL 6804434, at

22

*2-3 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2016) (requiring plaintiff to prove

23

indigence through documentation because “mere assertions are

24

inadequate to demonstrate indigence that would warrant relief

25

from Plaintiff’s obligation to pay costs”); Ritchie v. Haw. Dep’t

26

of Pub. Safety, No. 14-46 LEK-KJM, 2017 WL 4172500, at *3-6 (D.

27

Haw. Aug. 23, 2017) (plaintiff’s representations regarding her

28

employment status, current salary, and state of finances were

However, plaintiffs provide only a bare

Thus, the financial disparity between the parties

3

See, e.g., Fletes v.

Case 2:17-cv-02598-WBS-CKD Document 147 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 6
1

insufficient, without detailed information regarding her assets,

2

to establish indigency for purposes of bill of costs).

3

The court also rejects as a ground to deny costs

4

plaintiffs’ argument that this case presented important

5

constitutional protections and was litigated in good faith and

6

with a reasonable basis.

7

that prevailing parties are normally entitled to their costs,

8

even though most cases are litigated in good faith, and there is

9

no blanket exception for civil rights cases.

10

The rules and case law make it clear

The court further rejects plaintiffs’ argument that

11

granting costs will chill future civil rights litigation.

12

true that courts may consider that factor in deciding whether to

13

award costs.

14

1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he imposition of such high costs

15

on losing civil rights plaintiffs of modest means may chill civil

16

rights litigation . . . .”); Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators

17

v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000), (discussing

18

Stanley).

19

requested costs in this case would not have a significant

20

chilling effect on civil rights litigation of this type, where

21

the requested costs are relatively low, less than $10,000, but

22

the requested recovery was several millions of dollars.2

23

It is

See, e.g., Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d

However, in the court’s opinion, awarding the

Overall, plaintiffs have not met their burden of

24

showing that costs should not be awarded in this case, and the

25

court finds that “the reasons for denying costs are not

26
27
28

Indeed, it seems likely that defendants’ Bill of
Costs pales in comparison to both sides’ legal fees, expert
witness fees, and other expenses incurred during the litigation
of this case before and during trial.
4
2

Case 2:17-cv-02598-WBS-CKD Document 147 Filed 11/21/22 Page 5 of 6
1

sufficiently persuasive to overcome the presumption in favor of

2

an award.”

3

945 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court must provide reasons for

4

denying costs but need not do so if it grants costs, as “[t]he

5

presumption itself provides all the reason a court needs for

6

awarding costs”).

7

and will proceed to examine plaintiffs’ specific challenges to

8

certain items on defendant’s Bill of Costs.

9

II.

See Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932,

Accordingly, the court will not deny all costs

Specific Objections

10

The court notes that in response to plaintiffs’

11

objections, defendants have reduced the requested witness fee for

12

Dr. Jason Tovar to the statutory $40 witness fee, and have

13

withdrawn their request for $810 for deposition preparation time

14

for defense expert George Williams.

15

not address plaintiffs’ objections to those requested costs.

16

Accordingly, the court need

The parties continue to dispute whether defendants may

17

recover $315.60 for Mr. Williams’ deposition transcript.

While

18

it is true that defendants did not call Mr. Williams at trial,

19

“[w]hether a transcript or deposition is ‘necessary’ must be

20

determined in light of the facts known at the time the expense

21

was incurred.”

22

Med. Ctr., 646 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1219 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (Shubb,

23

J.) (citation omitted).

24

Williams before trial was reasonable because he was a potential

25

witness and it was not clear that he would not be called at

26

trial.

27

SOM, 2016 WL 4474505, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. 2016).

28

court will not disallow this cost.

Sunstone Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Alameda Cty.

Here, obtaining the transcript of Mr.

See Robinson v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., No. 2:10-cv-3187

5

Accordingly, the

Case 2:17-cv-02598-WBS-CKD Document 147 Filed 11/21/22 Page 6 of 6
1

After reviewing the bill, plaintiffs’ objections and

2

defendants’ reply, the court finds the requested costs, as

3

reduced by defendants’ reply, to be reasonable.

4

costs of $6,804.10 will be allowed for defendants and are taxed

5

against plaintiff.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 21, 2022

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

Accordingly,