American Tower Corporation v. The City of San Diego, California

Filing 44

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part ATC's (382) Motion to Retax Costs in case 07cv399-BEN-WVG. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 8/10/2015.(knb)

')

c!! r-.' r-,
I

i L~L~,

I
, Ii)
u
zo tr gU0 i n
1\.~1f'

2

t

L.J

D'~r 'I' 'I h)
i I
•
,
COi!'Tr

3

>\l.li~Ofil-!!f\

4

5

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

II

Case Nos.: 07CV399 BEN (WVG);
08CV435 BEN (WVG)

IN RE CELL TOWER LITIGATION,

12
13

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART ATC'S
MOTION TO RETAX COSTS

14
15

[Docket No. 382]

16
17
18

Plaintiffs American Tower Corporation and T-Mobile West Corporation's

19

("ATC") Motion to Re-Tax Costs is before the Court. (Docket No. 382.) ATC

20

challenges the Clerk's Order Taxing Costs. (Docket No. 381.) Defendant City of San

21

Diego has filed an Opposition and ATC has filed a Reply. (Docket Nos. 383-384.)

22

The Court need not recount the lengthy history ofthis litigation as the parties agree

23

that the City is the prevailing party. The Court need only determine if the City is entitled

24

to the costs taxed.

25
26
27

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(l) provides that "costs ... should be
allowed to the prevailing party." Dawson v. City a/Seattle, 435 F.3d 1054, 1070 (9th
1

1

Cir.2006). Only those costs enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 are available under Rule

2

54(d). Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987). Section

3

1920 provides for the following:

4
5

6
7

8
9

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily
obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any
materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 ofthis title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, and costs of special
interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

10
11
12
13

Civil Local Rule 54.1 (b) also identifies in greater detail the types ofitems in the
above categories that it is the custom of the court to allow.
"[T]here is a presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded its taxable

14

costs." Dawson v. City ofSeattle, 435 F.3d 1054, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Save Our

15

Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944 (9th Cir. 2003)). "The losing party must

16

show why costs should not be awarded." Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945. However,

17

numerous district courts have noted that this presumption arises once the prevailing party

18

has established the costs it seeks are taxable, i.e. are encompassed by § 1920. Ancora

19

Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 2013 WL 4532927, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013) (collecting

20

cases).

21
22
23

ATC's challenges certain deposition and copy costs taxed. The Court has
considered ATC's challenges and finds the costs are all taxable with one exception.
ATC argues in its Motion that that the City has included copy costs that were not

24

necessarily incurred in the cases in which the City prevailed -

25

essence, ATC asserts that the City has included copy costs associated with cases in which

26

A TC was not a party and cases in which ATC was a party but the cases were dismissed

27

by stipulation of the parties with each party to bear its own costs. This would include a
2

07cv399 and 08cv435. In

1 portion of the 07cv399 case because the parties jointly dismissed the claims in that case
2

as to the Federal Boulevard site, one of two sites at issue. In Opposition, the City

3

explains that the copy costs it has included are only those costs associated with ATC, not

4

any other plaintiffs. This addresses one issue - the three jointly dismissed cases in

5

which ATC was not a party. However, this leaves two cases in which ATC was a

6

plaintiff that were dismissed by joint motion and a portion of the 07cv399 case. This

7

presents a problem because copy costs must be "necessarily obtained for use" in the case

8

in which the party prevailed. § 1920(4); Rule 54(d)(I). Because the City has included

9

copy costs associated with cases and claims dismissed by joint motion, the City has

10
11

included costs it is not entitled to under § 1920.
Although this deficiency does not require exclusion of all the copy costs sought, a

12

reduction is warranted. The Court has considered the records of these cases, the

13

overlapping claims, and the distinctions as to the sites at issue and finds that a ten percent

14

reduction in the copy costs appropriately reduces the copy costs to account for the costs

15

associated with cases and claims in which the City was not a prevailing party. The fees

16

for exemplification and copies are reduced from $93,334.88 to $84,001.39.

17
18

The Court otherwise finds the costs taxed by the Clerk taxable and that no other
reductions are warranted.

19

CONCLUSION

20

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Retax as to costs for exemplification and

21

copies and reduces the taxable amount from $93,334.88 to $84,001.39. The Motion is

22

otherwise DENIED.

23

~~.RED.

24
25

DATED:~~~~_

26
27
3