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)

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)