Morello v. AMCO Insurance Company

Filing 151

Order by Hon. William H. Orrick granting in part and denying in part 139 Motion for Taxation of Costs. Morello's motion to re-tax costs is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. $339.85 in costs are STRUCK from the costs taxed by the clerk. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GEORGE MORELLO, Case No. 11-cv-06623-WHO Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RE-TAX COSTS Re: Dkt. No. 139 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 INTRODUCTION 13 14 Plaintiff George Morello appeals from the clerk’s taxation of costs on the grounds that the 15 clerk allowed defendant AMCO to recover costs associated with depositions that were not 16 necessary to the case. Morello’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The 17 depositions at issue were related to Morello’s underlying claim for insurance bad faith and the 18 costs associated with those depositions are recoverable. However, AMCO noticed and served 19 subpoenas for two depositions which were apparently not necessary. The costs associated with 20 those two depositions are not recoverable. $339.85 in costs are STRUCK from the costs taxed by 21 the clerk. 22 DISCUSSION 23 Morello, who is quadriplegic, was hit by a drunk driver while crossing a street in his 24 wheelchair. He filed an underinsured motorist claim with his insurance company, AMCO, and 25 subsequently filed this action alleging that AMCO handled Morello’s claim in bad faith because it 26 unreasonably determined that any future medical care he required was due to his pre-existing 27 quadriplegia, rather than the accident. I granted AMCO’s motion for summary judgment on May 28 29, 2014. Dkt. No. 129. 1 AMCO filed a bill of costs on June 9, 2014. Dkt. No. 131. On June 26, 2014, the clerk 2 taxed costs in the amount of $23,074.97.1 Dkt. No. 136. Morello now moves to stay the bill of 3 costs while his appeal of the summary judgment is pending. In the event that I do not stay the bill 4 of costs, Morello moves to strike $7,776.52 from the bill of costs for costs related to depositions 5 which Morello claims were not necessary. 6 I. 7 MORELLO’S APPEAL OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER IS NOT GROUNDS TO STAY THE BILL OF COSTS Morello argues that the bill of costs is premature because he is appealing the underlying 8 order granting AMCO summary judgment.2 In support, Morello cites Federal Rule of Appellate 9 Procedure 39(a)(1)(2)(3)(4) which provides that costs are allowed once an appeal is resolved. 10 Morello’s argument is misplaced. FRAP 39 governs costs on appeal; it has no bearing on 11 United States District Court Northern District of California costs taxed by the district court. Courts routinely tax costs incurred at the district court level while 12 appeals are pending. See, e.g., Henderson v. Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., 2008 WL 2588712, *3 13 14 (D. Haw. June 30, 2008) (“The Court finds that an award of attorneys’ fees and the taxation of costs would not be premature [while the appeal is pending]”). Morello’s motion to stay the bill of 15 costs is DENIED. 16 17 II. AMCO WAS PROPERLY AWARDED COSTS RELATED TO DEPOSITIONS OF MORELLO’S MEDICAL PROVIDERS Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “costs—other than 18 19 attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Morello moves to strike $7,776.52 20 from the bill of costs for transcripts, service, and witness fees for nine noticed depositions, some 21 of which were taken off calendar by AMCO. For the reasons stated below, Morello’s motion is 22 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.3 23 24 25 1 The clerk disallowed $1,812.70 in costs as excluded by Civil Local Rule 54-3(d)(3). Dkt. No. 136. 2 26 27 28 Morello also argues that the order is premature because he moved for reconsideration. That argument is moot because I have denied his motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 140. 3 I reject Morello’s argument that AMCO did not provide the required declaration stating that the claimed costs were necessary. The form Bill of Costs submitted by AMCO (Form AO 133) itself contains the requisite declaration and is signed by AMCO attorney Allen Cohen. See Dkt. No. 131 at 1. 2 A. Deposition transcripts 1 Morello seeks to strike $5,329.00 in costs for transcripts from the depositions of Doctors 2 Aftonomos, Hong, Waters, Rosenberg, Passeri, and Mr. David Marino.4 Dkt. No. 139 at 8. 3 Morello argues that these depositions were not necessary because (i) Morello’s claims were based 4 on AMCO’s alleged bad faith investigation of his insurance claim, not the diagnosis and treatment 5 of Morello and his injuries and (ii) none of the testimony from those depositions was used in 6 AMCO’s motion for summary judgment or its opposition to Morello’s motion for summary 7 judgment. 8 I disagree. Local Civil Rule 54-3(c)(1) provides that “[t]he cost of an original and one 9 copy of any deposition (including videotaped depositions) taken for any purpose in connection 10 with the case is allowable.” Doctors Aftonomos, Hong, Waters, Rosenberg, and Passeri treated 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Morello while Morello’s underinsured motorist claim was pending. Dkt. No. 143 at 8, Cohen 12 Decl. ¶ 2. Mr. Marino provided in-home health care assistance to Morello before and after 13 Morello was hit by the drunk driver. Id. Morello’s medical condition, both before and after the 14 accident, was unquestionably relevant to AMCO’s handling of Morello’s underinsured motorist 15 claim, particularly given that AMCO rejected Morello’s claim on the grounds that any future 16 medical care which Morello required was due to his pre-existing quadriplegia, rather than the 17 accident. Those depositions were accordingly taken “in connection with” Morello’s bad faith 18 complaint against AMCO. Local Civil Rule 54-3(c)(1). 19 The fact that the depositions were not ultimately used in the summary judgment briefing 20 has no bearing on the allowability of the costs. See, e.g., Sea Coast Foods, Inc. v. Lu-Mar Lobster 21 & Shrimp, Inc., 260 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Sept. 25, 2001) (district court 22 can tax depositions costs even where the depositions were not used at trial); Frederick v. City of 23 Portland, 162 F.R.D. 139, 143 (D. Or. 1995) (“A deposition need not be absolutely indispensable 24 to justify an award of costs; rather, it must only be reasonably necessary at the time it was taken, 25 without regard to later developments that may eventually render the deposition unneeded at the 26 27 28 4 Spelled “Moreno” by AMCO. 3 1 2 time of trial or summary disposition.”). Morello’s motion to strike $5,329.00 from the bill of costs for costs for transcripts from the 3 depositions of Doctors Aftonomos, Hong, Waters, Rosenberg, Passeri, and Mr. Marino is 4 DENIED. 5 B. Service of deposition subpoenas 6 Morello seeks to strike $1,888.45 from the bill of costs for fees for service of subpoenas 7 for 10 depositions. Dkt. No. 139 at 8. The 10 depositions include the six depositions discussed 8 above. For the reasons stated, costs associated with those depositions are properly recoverable. 9 The four other depositions are: a second deposition of Dr. Rosenberg and depositions of Dr. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Young, Kenneth Simoncini, and Paul J. McDonald. Dkt. No. 139 at 8. Morello states that the deposition of Dr. Rosenberg was set twice by AMCO because 12 AMCO took the deposition off calendar and then re-set it. Dkt. No. 139 at 7. AMCO does not 13 dispute this contention. Morello should not be required to pay for AMCO’s decision to take a 14 deposition off-calendar and then re-notice it. $199.15 in service fees for the second deposition of 15 Dr. Rosenberg are STRUCK from the bill of costs. 16 AMCO also elected to take the deposition of Dr. Young off calendar. AMCO does not 17 state why it did so or why at some point it believed that Dr. Young’s deposition was necessary. 18 Morello should not be required to pay for AMCO’s decision to serve subpoena for a deposition it 19 apparently did not need. $199.85 in service fees for the deposition of Dr. Young are STRUCK 20 from the bill of costs. 21 Mr. Simoncini was Morello’s attorney when Morello filed his claim with AMCO and was 22 directly involved in many of the communications between Morello and AMCO. He was therefore 23 a witness to Morello’s bad faith allegations. AMCO states that it decided not to depose Mr. 24 Simoncini after he agreed that he would not testify at trial. Cohen Decl. ¶ 4. AMCO’s service 25 fees related to Mr. Simoncini are therefore properly recoverable and Morello’s motion to strike 26 service fees for Mr. Simoncini’s deposition is DENIED. 27 Morello seeks to strike $35.00 for service fees for the deposition of Paul McDonald, but 28 4 1 Morello does not state why these fees should be disallowed.5 Morello’s motion to strike service 2 fees for Mr. McDonald deposition is DENIED. 3 C. Deposition witness fees Morello seeks to strike $559.07 in witness fees from the bill of costs. Dkt. No. 139 at 8-9. 4 5 The witnesses are the same witnesses discussed above regarding fees for deposition subpoenas. 6 As discussed, Morello should not be responsible for AMCO’s decision to schedule depositions 7 which it apparently did not need. The witness fees for Dr. Rosenberg’s second deposition and for 8 Dr. Young, totaling $105.00, are STRUCK. The remaining witness fees are allowed. CONCLUSION 9 Morello’s motion to re-tax costs is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 $339.85 in costs are STRUCK from the costs taxed by the clerk. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: October 6, 2014 ______________________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 I note that Morello does not contest the $850 in costs claimed by AMCO for the transcript of the deposition of McDonald. See Dkt. No. 131-1 at 32. If costs for the transcript of deposition itself are not objectionable, it is not clear to me why service fees for the same deposition are objectionable. 5

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?