City of Alameda, California et al v. Nuveen Municipal High Income Opportunity Fund et al

Filing 287

ORDER RE: ALAMEDA'S BILL OF COSTS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/23/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CITY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA,

No. C 08-4575 SI and No. C 09-1437 SI

9

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: ALAMEDA’S BILL OF
COSTS

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

v.
NUVEEN MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME
OPPORTUNITY FUND,
Defendant.

13

/

14
In its bill of costs, defendant City of Alameda seeks to recover a total of $131,913.58, consisting
15
of (1) $390.00 in Fees of the Clerk; (2) $83,607.28 in “Fees for printed or electronically recorded
16
transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case”; and (3) $47,916.30 in “Fees for exemplification and
17
the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the
18
case.” Docket No. 270 in C 08-4575 SI; Docket No. 228 in C 09-1437 SI. As discovery was
19
consolidated in these related cases, Alameda seeks to hold Nuveen and Osher jointly and severally liable
20
for the total costs incurred in its defense of both cases.
21

Nuveen and Osher filed objections to the Bill of Costs, to which Alameda responded.1 In

22
Alameda’s response, Alameda states, inter alia, that it discovered that it had mistakenly included a few
23
Vectren-related invoices in the bill of costs. Alameda requests a reduction of $4,690.84 in the amount
24
of reproduction costs, and now seeks a total of $127,222.74.
25
26
27
1

28

Osher joined in all of Nuveen’s specific objections to the cost bill, and raised additional
objections particular to Osher. Unless otherwise noted, citations to the docket are citations to Nuveen.

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

28 U.S.C. § 1920 authorizes a judge or clerk of the district court to tax costs. Pursuant to Federal

3

Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), costs incurred by the prevailing party may be assessed against the losing

4

party as of course and may be taxed by the clerk. “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order

5

provides otherwise, costs – other than attorney’s fees – should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed.

6

R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “Rule 54(d) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties,

7

and it is incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the costs should not be awarded.” Stanley

8

v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). Taxable costs are listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920

9

as follows:

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded
transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for
printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of
any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket
fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts,
compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special
interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

14

Civil Local Rule 54-3 provides additional “standards for interpreting the costs allowed under section

15

1920.” Intermedics v. Ventritex, Co., No. C-90-20233, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17803, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

16

Dec. 2, 1993). The taxation of costs lies within the trial court’s discretion. In re Media Vision Tech.

17

Secs. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1366 (N.D. Cal. 1996).

11
12

18

According to Civil Local Rule 54-1(a), a bill of costs “must state separately and specifically each

19

item of taxable costs claimed.” Civ. L.R. 54-1(a). Further, a party seeking costs must provide an

20

affidavit stating that the costs were “necessarily incurred, and are allowable by law” and “[a]ppropriate

21

documentation to support each item claimed.” Id. With regard to individual itemized costs, “the burden

22

is on the party seeking costs . . . to establish the amount of compensable costs and expenses to which

23

it is entitled.” Allison v. Bank One-Denver, 289 F.3d 1223, 1248-49 (10th Cir. 2002).

24
25
26

DISCUSSION
I.

Entitlement to costs and/or deferring a decision on costs pending appeal

27

Plaintiffs contend that Alameda should not be awarded costs because this case raised novel and

28

important legal issues, plaintiffs’ claims had merit, and plaintiffs litigated these cases in good faith. In
2

1

the alternative, Nuveen argues that the Court should defer a decision on the bill of costs pending

2

Nuveen’s appeal.2

3

The Court finds no reason to depart from the presumption in favor of awarding costs. These

4

securities fraud cases are not “extraordinary,” and the Court finds that there is no reason “why, in the

5

circumstances, it would be inappropriate or inequitable to award costs.” Assoc. of Mexican-American

6

Educators v. Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court also finds that there is no basis to defer

7

a decision on the bill of costs pending Nuveen’s appeal, because, inter alia, Nuveen has not shown that

8

it will be irreparably harmed absent a stay. See Asis Internet Servs. v. Optin Global, Inc., No. C-05-5124

9

JCS, 2008 WL 5245931, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

II.

Joint and several liability

12

Alameda seeks to hold plaintiffs jointly and severally liable for its costs because these cases were

13

consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs’ claims against Alameda

14

were essentially identical, discovery was consolidated, and plaintiffs are in a better position than

15

Alameda to apportion and segregate costs as between Nuveen and Osher.3 Accordingly, the Court taxes

16

costs against plaintiffs on a joint and several basis.

17
18

III.

Specific objections to costs

19

A.

20

Plaintiffs object to $6,005 in costs incurred by Alameda to synchronize videotaped depositions.

21

With a synchronized deposition video, a clip of the deposition can be played while the corresponding

22

transcript text scrolls on the bottom of the screen. Plaintiffs argue that these costs are not necessary, and

Synchronizing deposition videos

23
24

2

25

3

26
27
28

Osher did not file an appeal.

Indeed, both plaintiffs object that certain costs are only attributable to Osher or Nuveen, thus
demonstrating that plaintiffs can determine which costs should be shared and which costs should be
borne by a particular plaintiff. As the Court is awarding costs on a joint and several basis, plaintiffs’
objections that certain costs should be paid by the other plaintiff are OVERRULED. Similarly, the
Court OVERRULES Osher’s objection that it should not have to pay for costs incurred by Alameda
prior to the filing date of Osher’s complaint. Alameda produced documents to Nuveen before the Osher
lawsuit was filed, and Osher received copies of that discovery.
3

1

instead were incurred for the convenience of Alameda’s counsel. Alameda responds that it paid to have

2

important deposition video synchronized with the transcripts because Alameda was preparing the

3

depositions to use at the trial. Alameda asserts that synchronization is a valuable evidentiary tool for

4

the convenience of the Court and the jury, not the convenience of counsel.
The Court finds that these costs are recoverable because, if this case had proceeded to trial,

6

synchronized videotaped depositions would have assisted the jury in understanding the evidence in this

7

case, much of which was complicated. Other courts have found such costs to be recoverable. See, e.g.,

8

BDT Prods, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, 405 F.3d 415, 419-20 (6th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court’s award

9

of synchronized deposition costs after grant of summary judgment to defendant); Hynix Semiconductor

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1150-51 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (such costs recoverable under Civil

11

Local Rule 54-3(c) and 54-3(d)(5)). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES plaintiffs’ objection.

12
13

B.

14

Plaintiffs object to $8,725.93 in costs that include “rough” disks, “miniscript” condensed

15

transcripts, expedited transcripts, electronic scanning of deposition exhibits, and overnight and/or

16

express delivery charges for deposition transcripts. Plaintiffs argue that costs for additional copies of

17

transcripts are not recoverable because Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1) allows for “[t]he cost of an original

18

and one copy of any deposition (including video taped depositions) taken for any purpose . . . .”

19

Alameda asserts that the “rough” disks and expedited transcripts allowed Alameda’s attorneys to take

20

depositions of Nuveen witnesses on Nuveen’s own schedule, primarily during two trips to Chicago.

“Extra” deposition costs

21

The Court concludes that the costs for additional copies of deposition transcripts are not

22

recoverable. Although it appears that Alameda incurred these costs in order to concentrate the Chicago

23

Nuveen depositions in back-to-back sessions, Alameda does not cite any authority for the proposition

24

that it may recover for the costs of “rough” disks, “miniscripts” or expedited transcripts in addition to

25

the cost of an original and one copy of a deposition permitted under Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1). Courts

26

in the Northern District have held that costs for additional copies of transcripts are not recoverable. See

27

Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., No. C–90–20233 JW (WDB),1993 WL 515879, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

28

Dec. 2, 1993) (“If a party elects to have the transcript made available in an additional, separate medium,
4

1

such as on diskette or in a condensed ‘travel copy,’ the party must bear any additional expenses

2

associated with that choice.”); see also Affymetrix, Inc. v. Multilyte Ltd., No. C 03-03779 WHA, 2005

3

WL 2072113, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2005); Ishida Co., Ltd. v. Taylor, No. C-02-1617-JF (PVT), C-

4

02-05416-JF (PVT), 2004 WL 2713067, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2004). Accordingly, the Court

5

SUSTAINS plaintiffs’ objections to these costs.
A number of charges are for Federal Express or overnight delivery charges. Alameda asserts

7

that “[c]learly, courier service is the safest and most efficient manner to deliver deposition materials.”

8

Alameda’s Response at 5:25-26. However, Alameda does not cite any authority holding that these costs

9

are recoverable, and “[t]he normal practice in the Northern District is to disallow any postage and

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

handling charges that exceed the rate of regular first-class mail plus handling.” Intermedics, 1993 WL

11

515879, at *3 (courier service and express delivery charges associated with obtaining deposition

12

transcripts are not recoverable). Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS plaintiffs’ objections to the Federal

13

Express and overnight delivery charges.

14

Finally, certain of the costs at issue ($877.60) relate to electronic scanning of exhibits. Plaintiffs’

15

objection does not specifically address these costs or explain why they should be disallowed. Alameda

16

contends that these costs are allowable under Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(3), which provides that “the cost

17

of reproducing exhibits to depositions is allowable if the cost of the deposition is allowable.” The Court

18

agrees with Alameda that costs for electronic scanning of exhibits are recoverable under Civil Local

19

Rule 54-3(c)(3), and OVERRULES this aspect of plaintiffs’ objection.

20

Accordingly, the Court disallows $7,848.33 of the claimed costs.

21
22

C.

23

Plaintiffs object to $954 that Alameda paid to have two Alameda City Council hearings

24

transcribed. Plaintiffs object that these transcripts were “unspecified.” However, Alameda states that

25

during meet and confer efforts it explained that it had the two City Council hearings transcribed because

26

the City Council was the governing board that approved the sale of the securities in dispute in this case,

27

and the hearings concerning the securities were directly relevant to defending against plaintiffs’ claims.

28

Local Rule 54-3(d)(1) allows the costs of “reproducing and certifying or exemplifying

Alameda City Council transcripts

5

1

government records used for any purpose in the case . . . .” Civ. Local Rule 54-3(d)(1). The Court finds

2

that these costs are recoverable and OVERRULES plaintiffs’ objection.

3
4

D.

5

Plaintiffs object to $801 for reporters’ transcripts of various hearings in this case. Plaintiffs

6

contend these costs are not recoverable because Civil Local Rule 54-3(b)(1) allows for “the costs of

7

transcripts necessarily obtained for an appeal,” and Alameda ordered the transcripts at issue before

8

Nuveen filed its notice of appeal. Alameda responds that it needs the transcripts for it to respond to

9

Nuveen’s appeal. The Court finds that the costs are recoverable and OVERRULES plaintiffs’ objection.

Hearing transcripts

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

E.

12

Alameda seeks $43,225.46 in exemplification costs.4 These costs fall into three general

13

categories: (1) reproduction of disclosures and formal discovery, (2) PACER charges, and (3) charts and

14

visual aids for trial.

Exemplification costs

15
16

1.

Document production

17

Alameda seeks $27,143.89 in costs incurred in reproducing disclosures and formal discovery

18

documents.5 Plaintiffs object to these costs on a number of grounds. Plaintiffs assert that the vast

19

majority of these charges appear to be expenses incurred for OCR, metadata extraction and conversion

20

of paper documents into electronic format. Plaintiffs state that they requested production of documents

21
22
23

4

This is the revised figure after deducting the $4,690.84 in Vectren costs that Alameda’s
response states were mistakenly included in the cost bill.
5

24
25
26
27
28

This is the revised figure after deducting the $4,690.84 in Vectren costs. The Court notes that
plaintiffs’ objections confusingly state that Alameda’s bill of costs seeks $37,000 in “document
reproduction” costs, and yet the itemized list of disputed costs totals $34,718.62. Docket No. 274 at
23:1-25:23. The $34,718.62 figure includes the costs for aerial photographs and maps, discussed infra,
and incorrectly lists one charge twice (the $450 charge for Sam Sargent Photography – the invoices
show that the charge was incurred on 2-28-11 and paid by Alameda on 3-10-11). In evaluating the bill
of costs and plaintiffs’ objections thereto, the Court arrived at $27,143.89 as the correct amount
attributable to reproducing disclosures and formal discovery documents by using the subtotal contained
in Exhibit B to the cost bill for “reproduction of disclosure and formal discovery documents and trial
exhibits” and deducting $4,690.84.
6

1

in paper format, but that most of Alameda’s document production was done in electronic format at

2

Alameda’s insistence because Alameda had already incurred the cost to produce electronic documents

3

in the previously-filed Vectren case. Plaintiffs state that during the parties’ meet and confer regarding

4

the bill of costs, plaintiffs requested Alameda to identify which charges were attributable to these actions

5

and to explain why it was seeking costs for OCR, metadata extraction, and conversion of paper

6

documents into electronic format when those charges had already been incurred in Vectren. According

7

to plaintiffs, Alameda “refused to provide a straight answer” to these questions.
In response, Alameda states that plaintiffs encountered problems creating their electronic

9

document databases, and that Alameda “thus prepared and produced OCR text files and other database-

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

management files to Nuveen and Osher, at their demand.” Docket No. 281 at 8:7-8. In addition,

11

although not asserted in Alameda’s response to plaintiffs’ objections, during the parties’ meet and

12

confer, Alameda informed plaintiffs that some of the disputed invoices were for “printing, binding and

13

tabbing disclosure documents to prepare fact witnesses for deposition and to provide to experts as basis

14

for their opinion.” Docket No. 274-2 at 1.

15

The Court has reviewed all of the parties’ papers, including the invoices at issue and the parties’

16

meet and confer e-mails and letters. The Court agrees with plaintiffs that OCR and metadata extraction

17

are not recoverable. See Computer Cache Coherency Corp. v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-01766 RMW, 2009

18

WL 5114002, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009). In contrast, costs for electronic scanning are recoverable.

19

See id. In addition, while Alameda is correct that the Local Rule states that “the cost of reproducing

20

disclosure or formal discovery documents when used for any purpose in the case is allowable,” courts

21

have interpreted that Rule as allowing costs for “copied documents . . . prepared for use in presenting

22

evidence to the court or prepared or tendered for the opposing party.” United States, ex rel. Meyer v.

23

Horizon Health Corp., No. C 00-1303 SBA, 2007 WL 518607, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2007). Thus,

24

invoices for copies of disclosure documents that Alameda provided to fact witnesses and experts are not

25

recoverable.

26

With these guidelines in mind, the Court will permit Alameda to file a revised and supplemental

27

cost bill seeking costs for electronic scanning of documents required for the document production in

28

these cases, as well as the costs for photocopying documents for the document production. If Alameda
7

1

seeks costs for electronic scanning, the supplemental cost bill shall be accompanied by a declaration

2

explaining why electronic scanning of documents was required in these cases. Alameda shall submit

3

the revised and supplemental cost bill no later than 14 days after the filing date of this order, and

4

plaintiffs may file an objection to the revised and supplemental cost bill no later than seven days after

5

the filing of the revised and supplemental cost bill. The revised and supplemental cost bill, and any

6

objections thereto, shall be limited solely to (1) costs for electronic scanning of documents and (2) costs

7

for photocopying documents for document production.

8
9

2.

PACER

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiffs object to $674.32 in PACER charges. Alameda asserts that these costs are recoverable

11

under Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(1), which allows the “cost of reproducing, certifying or exemplifying

12

government records used for any purpose in the case.” However, Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(3) states that

13

“the cost of reproducing copies of motions, pleadings, notices, and other routine case papers is not

14

allowable.” The Court finds that the PACER charges are not allowable, and SUSTAINS plaintiffs’

15

objection. Accordingly, the Court disallows $674.32 from Alameda’s cost bill.

16
17

3.

Charts and visual aids for trial

18

Plaintiffs object to $13,000 for “unexplained expenses” paid to “SNL Kagan,” and $631.786 paid

19

to Advanced Courtroom Technologies. Plaintiffs assert that these costs are “unexplained,” and also

20

asserts these costs are for Alameda’s counsel’s purchase of computer software and hardware for its law

21

firm. Plaintiffs also object to $2,407.25 for aerial photographs and maps of Alameda, asserting that

22

these photographs and maps were never produced to plaintiffs and that Alameda has not explained how

23

these documents are relevant to this case.

24

In response, Alameda states that these costs are recoverable under Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(5),

25

which allows costs for “preparing charts, diagrams, videotapes and other visual aids to be used as

26
6

27
28

Although plaintiffs include the $631.78 Advanced Courtroom Technologies invoice in their
objections to Alameda’s exemplification costs, Alameda listed that invoice under “Deposition
Transcripts” in the costs summary, Bill of Costs Ex. B, and thus this amount is included in the total for
“Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.”
8

1

exhibits . . . if such exhibits are reasonably necessary to assist the jury or the Court in understanding the

2

issues at the trial.” Alameda states that it retained SNL Kagan to prepare exhibits to explain

3

complicated historical financial data related to the nationwide telecom industry. See Elder Decl. ¶ 8.

4

Alameda states that it retained Advanced Courtroom Technologies to prepare and configure Alameda’s

5

trial exhibits for use on the Court’s video system, and that none of the disputed costs are for computer

6

software or hardware. Id. Finally, with regard to the aerial maps and photographs, Alameda states that

7

it prepared those exhibits to be used at trial to demonstrate the challenges that Alameda faced in building

8

a successful telecom system.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The Court finds that the costs are recoverable under Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(5), and
OVERRULES plaintiffs’ objection.

11
Legal research7

12

F.

13

Plaintiffs object to $40 in costs incurred by Alameda to obtain the court file in BNY Western

14

Trust Co. v. Superior Court. The case file for BNY was not on a computerized legal research database,

15

and thus Alameda had to retrieve it from the Clerk of the Court for the Second Appellate Division.

16

Plaintiffs object that this cost is properly characterized as legal research, which is not a recoverable cost

17

under § 1920 or the local rules. Alameda did not respond to plaintiffs’ objection to this cost, and the

18

Court agrees with plaintiffs that this cost is not recoverable, whether it is characterized as legal research

19

or “the cost of reproducing copies of motions, pleadings, notices, and other routine case papers” under

20

Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(3). Accordingly, the Court disallows $40 from the bill of costs.

21
22

CONCLUSION

23

The Court finds that Alameda is the prevailing party and entitled to recover its costs from

24

plaintiffs on a joint and several basis. The Court awards $91,516.20 in costs, which accounts for the

25

deductions made in this order, as well as a $27,143.89 deduction for the costs claimed for document

26

production costs. Some portion of the $27,143.89 may be awarded after the Court reviews Alameda’s

27
28

7

This cost was included in the “filing fees” category on the Bill of Costs.
9

1

supplemental and revised bill of costs and any objections thereto.

2

Alameda shall submit the revised and supplemental cost bill no later than 14 days after the filing

3

date of this order, and plaintiffs may file an objection to the revised and supplemental cost bill no later

4

than 7 days after the filing of the revised and supplemental cost bill. The Court will then take the matter

5

under submission.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: January 23, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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