Ellis v. Government Employee Ins. Co.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 STANLEY ELLIS, No. 2:22-cv-01580 WBS JDP 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: BILL OF COSTS 15 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, 16 Defendant. 17

18 ----oo0oo---- 19 The court entered summary judgment in favor of 20 defendant on March 19, 2024. (Docket No. 50.) On March 28, 21 2024, defendant submitted a Bill of Costs pursuant to Local Rule 22 292(b). (Docket No. 51.) Defendant claims costs of $402.00 for 23 removal, and $25,737.35 for obtaining copies of witness 24 deposition transcripts, videos, and related exhibits for use in 25 this case, for a total bill of $26,139.35. (Id.) Plaintiff has 26 not objected to the costs pursuant to Local Rule 292(c), and the 27 time to do so has passed. 28 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) governs the 2 taxation of costs and provides that “costs –– other than 3 attorney's fees –– should be allowed to the prevailing party.” 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). 28 U.S.C. § 1920 enumerates which 5 costs are taxable and allows for the recovery of “[f]ees of the 6 clerk and marshal,” id. § 1920(1); “[f]ees for printed or 7 electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use 8 in the case,” id. § 1920(2); and “the costs of making copies of 9 any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use 10 in the case,” id. § 1920(4). “The cost of deposition copies is 11 ‘encompassed’ by section 1920(2), and is therefore properly 12 taxed” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters 13 Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990). “[28 U.S.C.] 14 section 1920(4) enables a court to award copying costs for any 15 document ‘necessarily obtained for use in the case’ and does not 16 specifically require that the copied document be introduced into 17 the record to be an allowable cost.” Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Double 18 Rainbow Gourmet Ice Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir. 19 1990). 20 Given that defendant is the prevailing party in this 21 case, the court has discretion to allow for their “recovery of 22 deposition costs and copying costs.” See Sea Coast Foods, Inc. 23 v. Lu-Mar Lobster & Shrimp, Inc., 260 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 24 2001); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 292(f). “Rule 54(d) creates a 25 presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties, and 26 it is incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the 27 costs should not be awarded.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 28 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). eee RE I ERIE IRE II EIEN EI OS OD

1 After reviewing defendant’s Bill of Costs, which 2 encompasses costs incurred for ten (10) depositions, and in light 3 of the fact that plaintiff has not objected, the court finds that 4 defendant’s claimed costs of $26,139.35 are reasonable here. 5 Accordingly, costs of $26,139.35 will be taxed against 6 plaintiff. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: April 19, 2024 . - aA theo A dh bE □ WILLIAM B. SHUBB 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28