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).

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