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

Filing 290

ORDER signed on 5/11/12 by Judge Susan Illston denying ( 288 ) Motion Revised Cost Bill Revised Cost Bill in case 3:08-cv-04575-SI; denying ( 236 ) Motion Revised Cost Bill Revised Cost Bill in case 3:09-cv-01437-SI (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2012) Modified on 5/15/2012 (tfS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CITY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA, 9 Plaintiff, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 No. C 08-4575 SI and No. C 09-1437 SI FURTHER ORDER RE: ALAMEDA’S BILL OF COSTS v. NUVEEN MUNICIPAL OPPORTUNITY FUND, HIGH INCOME Defendant. / 14 On January 23, 2012, the Court awarded Alameda $91,526.20 of its claimed costs, and held 15 plaintiffs in these related cases jointly and severally liable for the costs. With regard to certain claimed 16 costs, the Court held that Alameda was not entitled to recover for OCR and metadata extraction, but that 17 Alameda could recover for electronic scanning. The January 23, 2012 order stated that “the Court will 18 permit Alameda to file a revised and supplemental cost bill seeking costs for electronic scanning of 19 documents required for the document production in these cases, as well as the costs for photocopying 20 documents for the document production. If Alameda seeks costs for electronic scanning, the 21 supplemental cost bill shall be accompanied by a declaration explaining why electronic scanning of 22 documents was required in these cases.” Order at 7:26-8:2. 23 In response to the Court’s order, Alameda filed a further submission seeking $15,867.99 for 24 scanning documents for production and producing those documents, and $1,144.78 for copying 25 documents for use as exhibits at trial. Nuveen has filed an objection to Alameda’s revised cost bill. 26 28 U.S.C. § 1920 authorizes a judge or clerk of the district court to tax costs. Pursuant to Federal 27 Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), costs incurred by the prevailing party may be assessed against the losing 28 1 party as of course and may be taxed by the clerk. “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order 2 provides otherwise, costs – other than attorney’s fees – should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The taxation of costs lies within the trial court’s discretion. In re Media Vision 4 Tech. Secs. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1366 (N.D. Cal. 1996). According to Civil Local Rule 54-1(a), 5 a bill of costs “must state separately and specifically each item of taxable costs claimed.” Civ. L.R. 6 54-1(a). Further, a party seeking costs must provide an affidavit stating that the costs were “necessarily 7 incurred, and are allowable by law” and “[a]ppropriate documentation to support each item claimed.” 8 Id. With regard to individual itemized costs, “the burden is on the party seeking costs . . . to establish 9 the amount of compensable costs and expenses to which it is entitled.” Allison v. Bank One-Denver, 289 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 F.3d 1223, 1248-49 (10th Cir. 2002). 11 The Court finds that Alameda has not met its burden to show that the costs claimed in the further 12 submission are recoverable. Alameda states that “[e]lectronic scanning was necessary because Nuveen 13 and Osher demanded, and Alameda produced, approximately two million pages of documents in this 14 case.” Elder Decl. ¶ 3. However, as Nuveen notes, that this is the same explanation Alameda provided 15 in its original submission. Nuveen states that Alameda electronically produced over 1.7 million pages 16 to Nuveen directly from the same production in Vectren, and Nuveen paid for other document 17 production. Nuveen has identified numerous specific invoices that (1) predate the beginning of 18 discovery in these cases, and thus were presumably incurred in the Vectren case; (2) appear to relate 19 to Vectren, based on references on the invoices such as “accounting documents,” as accounting was an 20 issue in Vectren and not in these cases; and (3) show costs incurred for “binding” and assembly into 21 three-ring binders, and Nuveen states that Alameda did not produce binders to Nuveen. 22 With regard to the claimed $1,144.78 for copying documents for use as exhibits at trial, Alameda 23 states that this cost is recoverable because it was incurred to prepare visual aids for trial. However, the 24 Court granted summary judgment in favor of Alameda on all claims in an order filed May 16, 2011, and 25 it appears from the date on the invoice that the binders were produced on May 17, 2011. Nuveen also 26 notes that although the handwritten notation on the invoice states “PTF & Def Combined Prelim. Trial 27 Exh.,” Nuveen states that it never exchanged trial exhibits with Alameda, and thus the binders could not 28 have included plaintiffs’ exhibits. 2 1 2 3 CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in this order, the Court DENIES Alameda’s revised cost bill. Docket No. 288 in C 08-4575 SI and 236 in C 09-1437 SI. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: May _11__, 2012 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 8 9 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 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?