Batiste v. City of Richmond et al

Filing 330

ORDER sustaining 328 Plaintiff's objections to Defendants' bills of costs. Signed by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin on November 25, 2024. (amolc2, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DAVID BATISTE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 22-cv-01188-AMO

v.
CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’
BILLS OF COSTS
Re: Dkt. No. 328

12
13

On September 20, 2024, in accordance with a jury verdict, judgment was entered in favor

14

of Defendant City of Richmond and Defendant Hugo Mendoza, and against Plaintiff David

15

Batiste. ECF 322. Defendants filed bills of costs, Batiste objected, and Defendant City of

16

Richmond filed a response to Batiste’s objections. Having considered the parties’ submissions

17

and relevant case law, and for the reasons discussed below, Batiste’s objections are SUSTAINED.

18

Batiste objects to certain of Mendoza’s deposition related costs. Pursuant to Local Civil

19

Rule 54-3(c)(1), “[t]he cost of an original and one copy of any deposition (including videotaped

20

depositions) taken for any purpose in connection with the case is allowable.” Batiste disputes

21

Mendoza’s inclusion of a condensed transcript fee ($32.50), handling and processing fee ($72.00),

22

and litigation technology, support, and security management fee ($55.00). Mendoza does not

23

challenge Batiste’s objection. Because these specific fees are not included in the Local Civil Rule,

24

the Court finds the three costs to which Batiste objects – totaling $159.50 – are not allowable.

25

As relates to the City of Richmond’s bill of costs, Batiste objects to the City of

26

Richmond’s inclusion of the reporter’s attendance fee ($325.00). Local Civil Rule 54-3(c)(5)

27

provides that “[t]he attendance fee of a reporter when a witness fails to appear is allowable if the

28

claimant made use of available process to compel the attendance of the witness.” Batiste argues

1

that because he appeared for both days of his scheduled deposition, the reporter’s attendance fee is

2

not allowable. The City of Richmond’s response to the objection directs the Court to out of

3

district cases which hold that the cost of court reporter’s attendance is taxable. ECF 329 at 2.

4

However, the plain language of Rule 54-3(c)(5) and its interpretation by other courts in this

5

district support Batiste. See Phoenix Techs. Ltd. v. VMWare, Inc., No. 15-CV-01414-HSG, 2018

6

WL 4700347, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2018) (interpreting Local Rule 54-3(c)(5) to allow

7

recovery of a reporter’s attendance fee only when a witness fails to appear). Thus, the Court finds

8

the City of Richmond is not entitled to the reporter’s attendance fee.

9
10

In sum, the Court SUSTAINS Batiste’s objections and DISALLOWS $159.50 from
Mendoza’s bill of costs and $325.00 from the City of Richmond’s bill of costs.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2024

14
15
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2