Cannon v. Austal USA LLC et al

Filing 149

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Re-Tax Costs [Doc. No. 148 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 12/08/2017. (ajs)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM J. CANNON, Case No.: 15-cv-2582-CAB (BLM) Plaintiff, 11 12 13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RE-TAX COSTS v. AUSTAL USA, LLC and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 Defendants. 15 [Doc. No. 148] 16 17 On October 24, 2017, the Court granted the motions for summary judgment filed by 18 Defendants, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants and against 19 Plaintiff. After the judgment, both Defendants filed bills of costs [Doc. Nos. 135, 137], 20 each of which sought only fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily 21 obtained for use in this case. Plaintiff objected to these costs [Doc. No. 139], and a hearing 22 was held on November 21, 2017. On December 1, 2017, the Clerk of Court taxed costs of 23 $8,158.97 in favor of Defendant United States of America, and of $6,134.83 in favor of 24 Defendant Austal USA, LLC. [Doc Nos. 143, 144.] Plaintiff now moves to retax these 25 costs. 26 “Unless a federal statute, [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], or a court order 27 provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing 28 party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Here, Plaintiff’s motion argues that Defendants did not 1 15-cv-2582-CAB (BLM) 1 establish that they had a reasonable expectation that the depositions for which they sought 2 costs of transcription would be used for trial preparation. However, attorneys for both 3 Defendants signed declarations under penalty of perjury that the costs they sought were 4 necessarily incurred, and Plaintiff even admits that he noticed 14 of the 22 depositions in 5 question. Plaintiff offers no evidence or argument as to why these declarations were 6 insufficient or erroneous, and the Court finds this objection to be frivolous. The Court 7 declines to retax costs on this ground. 8 Plaintiff otherwise does not contest any of the particular costs awarded; he simply 9 argues that the Court should exercise discretion to deny costs to Defendants. However, 10 despite Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, there is no question that both Defendants were 11 the prevailing parties with respect to Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, Defendants are entitled 12 to their costs from Plaintiff. None of Plaintiff’s other arguments persuade the Court that 13 an exception to this rule is warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to re-tax costs is 14 DENIED. 15 16 It is SO ORDERED. Dated: December 8, 2017 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 15-cv-2582-CAB (BLM)

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?