McCauley v. Stanford University Medical Center et al

Filing 83

ORDER BY JUDGE JEREMY FOGEL RE 76 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF TAXED COSTS. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

**E-Filed 5/28/09**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

VANDA MCCAULEY, Plaintiff, v.

Case Number C 07-1784 JF (RS) ORDER1 RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF TAXED COSTS [re: docket no. 76]

STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff moves for review of the costs taxed against her by the Clerk of the Court. The motion is opposed by Defendants. The Court has considered the moving and responding papers and the oral arguments of counsel presented at the hearing on May 22, 2009, and orders as follows: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), costs other than attorneys' fees generally "should be allowed to the prevailing party" in a civil suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). This "rule creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party, but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs." Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators v. State of

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

C a s e No. C 07-1784 JF (RS) O R D E R RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF TAXED COSTS ( JF L C 2 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000). The specific types of costs that a court may tax are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The Civil Local Rules of this district provide further guidance with respect to the types of costs that may be taxed. See Civ. L. R. 54-3. In the instant case, the Clerk taxed costs in the amount of $3,746.84.2 Plaintiff challenges as excessive the Fees of the Clerk in the amount of $990.00, arguing that "Defendants did not have to incur the cost of removing the matter from State Court to Federal Court, which added an additional $350.00 for removal." Obj. to Bill of Costs at 2. Plaintiff cites no authority in support of her argument. Defendants had an absolute right to remove this action. Plaintiff also objects to fees for service of summons and subpoenas, which the Clerk taxed in the amount of $796.44. Plaintiff asserts that to the extent the fees are for deposition subpoenas, the fees should not be taxed as costs because the depositions ultimately were not taken. Plaintiff again fails to cite any authority for her position. Plaintiff argues that to the extent the fees are for subpoenas of Defendants' own records, the fees should not be taxed as costs. The Clerk in fact disallowed Defendants' claim of $55.00 in subpoena fees for their own records, and also disallowed fees in the amount of $10.00 with respect to records of Kaiser Permanente-Santa Clara, reducing Defendants' claimed costs in the amount of $861.44 for summons and subpoenas to taxed costs in the amount of $796.44 for this category. Finally, Plaintiff challenges as excessive the fees for exemplification and copies. The Clerk reduced the costs in this category from the claimed amount of $258.21 to taxed costs in the amount of $198.65. Plaintiff offers no authority for a further reduction. The Clerk of the Court carefully considered all of the costs submitted by Defendants, and reduced the claimed costs in several categories. The Court is satisfied that the costs taxed by the Clerk are authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Civ. L. R. 54-3. Plaintiff argues that given the potential hardship to her and the disparity of resources At first glance, this appears to be an amount greater than that requested by Defendants, as the "total" figure on Defendants' bill of costs is $3,439.21. However, it is clear that the figure $3,439.21 is the result of an error in addition on the part of Defendants. If all of the line item costs claimed by Defendants are added, the total is $4,039.21. Thus the Clerk's award in the amount of $3,746.84 actually is less than the total amount of costs requested by Defendants. 2
C a s e No. C 07-1784 JF (RS) O R D E R RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF TAXED COSTS ( JF L C 2 )
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

between her and Defendants, the Court in the exercise of its discretion should decline to award costs in this case. Plaintiff relies primarily upon Stanley v. University of Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 1999) in making this request. In that case, the court was concerned with the possibility that the unemployed plaintiff would be rendered indigent if forced to pay more than $46,000 in costs. Id. at 1079-80. The court also noted that although the plaintiff ultimately did not prevail on her lawsuit, she raised important civil rights issues as to which "the answers were far from obvious." Id. at 1080. In contrast, in the instant case Plaintiff is employed, and the taxed costs at issue total less than $4,000. In the Court's experience, this is an extremely modest figure given that this was a contested employment discrimination case in which a motion for summary judgment was filed. While the Court of course is aware of the state of the economy, and is sympathetic to Plaintiff's situation, a significant disparity in the financial resources of the plaintiff and the defendant is present in virtually every employment discrimination lawsuit. Accordingly, while the Court has considered Plaintiff's declaration statements regarding her circumstances, the Court concludes that this case does not warrant a departure from the presumption established by Rule 54(d)(1). ORDER Accordingly, the Court affirms the Clerk's taxation of costs in the amount of $3,746.84.

DATED: 5/26/09 __________________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

3
C a s e No. C 07-1784 JF (RS) O R D E R RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF TAXED COSTS ( JF L C 2 )

1 2

Copies of Order served on: Alyson Cabrera [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail]

3 Marylon M. Boyd 4 Michael Terence Lucey 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
C a s e No. C 07-1784 JF (RS) O R D E R RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF TAXED COSTS ( JF L C 2 )