Heller Ehrman LLP v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Filing 29

ORDER re 24 Bill of Costs filed by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 7/25/2014. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2014).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 12 13 ORDER AWARDING COSTS Plaintiff, 10 11 No. C 14-01239 CRB HELLER EHRMAN LLP, v. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Defendant. 14 / 15 After the Court granted summary judgment, Defendant filed, pursuant to Federal Rule 16 of Civil Procedure 54(d), a Bill of Costs (dkt. 24) seeking a total of $48,148.90. Now before 17 the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (dkt. 27) to the Bill of Costs. Under Rule 54(d), there is a 18 presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded its taxable costs. See Save Our Valley 19 v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944 (9th Cir. 2003). To overcome this presumption, a losing 20 party must establish a reason to deny costs. See Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 21 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, Plaintiff has specifically identified “extras” which are for 22 convenience of the lawyers and not properly billable to Plaintiff in the amount of $13,918.62. 23 Plaintiff’s other objections are OVERRULED. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay a 24 total of $34,230.28 in taxable costs. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: July 25, 2014 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?