Hood v. King County et al

Filing 164

ORDER granting plaintiff's 158 , 159 Motions to Retax Costs ; The Clerk of Court's orders awarding costs to the hospitals (Dkt. ## 155 , 156 ) and the Clerk of Court's order awarding costs to King County (Dkt. # 157 ) are hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

LUCI HOOD,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

v.

No. C15-828RSL
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO RETAX COSTS

COUNTY OF KING, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion to Retax Costs Awarded to
King County,” Dkt. # 158, and plaintiff’s “Motion to Retax Cost Bill of Defendants Highline
Medical Center and Fairfax Hospital,” Dkt. # 159. On June 7, 2017, the Deputy Clerk of Court
awarded King County costs of $3,360.47, Dkt. # 157, and awarded the hospitals costs of
$2,235.20 and $2,989.80, respectively, Dkt. ## 155, 156. Having reviewed the documents that
were before the Clerk as well as the parties’ memoranda, the Court finds as follows:
(1) The Deputy Clerk properly noted that he lacks discretion to deny costs to the
prevailing party based on considerations of the possible chilling effect that costs might have on
future litigation by civil rights plaintiffs.
(2) On appeal per LCR 54(d)(4), however, the Court has discretion to deny costs upon

24

considering the chilling effect on future similar actions, the plaintiff’s limited financial

25

resources, and the economic disparity between the parties. See Escriba v. Foster Poultry

26

Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247–48 (9th Cir. 2014).
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTIONS TO RETAX COSTS

1

(3) Plaintiff’s case involved civil rights claims and claims under the Involuntary

2

Treatment Act. Individual plaintiffs might be chilled from bringing cases like this one if they

3

are later required to subsidize the litigation costs of a powerful hospital or government entity.

4

In light of this potential chilling effect, and on the disparity of resources between plaintiff and

5

the defendants in this case, the Court concludes that an award of costs to King County and the

6

hospitals is not appropriate.

7
8

(4) The Court therefore exercises its discretion to vacate the awards of costs to
defendants.

9
10

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motions to retax costs (Dkt. ## 158, 159) are

11

GRANTED. The Clerk of Court’s orders awarding costs to the hospitals (Dkt. ## 155, 156)

12

and the Clerk of Court’s order awarding costs to King County (Dkt. # 157) are hereby

13

VACATED.

14
15

Dated this 25th day of July, 2017.
16

A

17

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTIONS TO RETAX COSTS

-2-