Heller Ehrman LLP v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
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).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
ORDER AWARDING COSTS
No. C 14-01239 CRB
HELLER EHRMAN LLP,
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
After the Court granted summary judgment, Defendant filed, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54(d), a Bill of Costs (dkt. 24) seeking a total of $48,148.90. Now before
the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (dkt. 27) to the Bill of Costs. Under Rule 54(d), there is a
presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded its taxable costs. See Save Our Valley
v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944 (9th Cir. 2003). To overcome this presumption, a losing
party must establish a reason to deny costs. See Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069,
1079 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, Plaintiff has specifically identified “extras” which are for
convenience of the lawyers and not properly billable to Plaintiff in the amount of $13,918.62.
Plaintiff’s other objections are OVERRULED. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay a
total of $34,230.28 in taxable costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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?