Saba v. UNISYS Corporation

Filing 171

ORDER REGARDING SABA'S 169 RESPONSE TO TAXATION OF COSTS. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/18/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FADI SABA,

Case No. 14-cv-01310-WHO
Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER REGARDING SABA'S
RESPONSE TO TAXATION OF COSTS

9
10

UNISYS CORPORATION,

Re: Dkt. No. 169

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

After I issued the Order reviewing costs, plaintiff Fadi Saba filed an opposition to

13

defendant Unisys Corporation’s petition for review. Dkt. No. 169. The docket indicated that Saba

14

had until September 15, 2015 to respond. Accordingly, I have considered this opposition filed on

15

September 15, 2015, and reviewed Unisys’s motion to review costs. However, my decision

16

remains the same.

17

This is the third time the costs have been reviewed in this case. Saba objected to Unisys’s

18

bill of costs when it was first submitted, and the clerk considered Saba’s objections in awarding

19

costs. After the clerk taxed costs, Unisys petitioned this Court for review. I granted Unisys’s

20

motion, reviewed the court’s taxation of costs, and amended the clerk’s award of costs. In doing

21

so, I also looked at Saba’s original objections to the costs as well as the applicable law and the

22

necessities of this case.

23

I have carefully considered the arguments that Saba presents in his most recent opposition.

24

I have also considered the governing law. They do not change any of my determinations. Many

25

of Saba’s arguments were addressed by the first award of costs by the clerk. For example, the

26

clerk did not tax costs to expedite service, reduced costs after considering Saba’s objections to

27

travel expenses, and reduced copying fees to the allowable copying rate. I found those reductions

28

to be appropriate and did not alter them.

1

Saba also objects to the way that the depositions were conducted, but provides no reason

2

that this is a proper basis to deny costs. That said, I have read the depositions that the parties

3

submitted in the summary judgment briefing, and considered them when I made my decision

4

reviewing the costs. The costs awarded to Unisys reflect the costs that were necessary to prepare

5

for trial.

6

Finally, Saba reiterates his argument that I disallow costs entirely. He does not provide

7

any information that was not already addressed, or other support for his position. My decision not

8

to exercise my discretion to disallow costs is not altered.

9

In addition, Saba raises issues with my Order as it pertained to his desire to seal certain
information. I explained in the prior order that Saba, as all other litigants, must abide by the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

procedural requirements to file information under seal. Before he may file anything under seal, he

12

must first file a motion to seal. Saba is encouraged to seek assistance from the pro se help desk in

13

filing any such motions (415.782.9000 extension 8657).

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 18, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2