Nghiem v. Santa Clara University

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PETER P NGHIEM, Case No. 21-cv-06872-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING COSTS v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 98, 99 10 SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 On January 5, 2024, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 14 No. 92. Defendants thereafter submitted a bill of costs for a written transcript and videotaped 15 recording of plaintiff Peter Nghiem’s deposition. Dkt. No. 94. The total amount included in the 16 bill of costs was $2,519.95. Id. Mr. Nghiem objects to defendants’ bill of costs, arguing that some 17 of the costs are not allowable and that this Court should deny the requested costs given his 18 constrained financial position. Dkt. No. 98. 19 Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1) states that the cost of “an original and one copy of any 20 deposition (including videotaped depositions) taken for any purpose in connection with the case is 21 allowable.” And Local Rule 54-3(c)(3) states that the cost of “reproducing exhibits to depositions 22 is allowable if the cost of the deposition is allowable.” Thus, the costs requested by defendants, 23 per the invoices attached to the bill of costs, are allowable. Dkt. Nos. 94-1, 94-2. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs 25 to the prevailing party. Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, 231 26 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, a district court has the discretion to refuse to award 27 costs, including when a losing party has limited financial resources. Champion Produce, Inc. v. 1 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[I]ndigency is a factor that the district court may properly 2 || consider in deciding whether to award costs.”). Ultimately, the losing party has the burden of 3 |} overcoming the Rule 54(d)(1) presumption by affirmatively showing that the prevailing party is 4 not entitled to costs. Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 5 Here, Mr. Nghiem argues that the Court should refuse to award costs to defendants 6 || because of his limited financial resources. He asserts that he has “very low income as a part-time 7 caregiver” and that he “has to sleep in the living room of his mother’s single bedroom housing 8 || apartment while storing most of his very limited personal belongings in Personal Storage.” Dkt. 9 No. 98, at 5. The Court previously granted Mr. Nghiem’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 10 || pauperis. Dkt. No. 9. 11 The evidence submitted by Mr. Nghiem establishes that, in light of his current financial 12 situation, paying $2,519.95 in costs would present a significant financial hardship for him. 5 13 Awarding costs to defendants in this case could also have a chilling effect on future civil rights 14 || litigants. For both of these reasons, the Court invokes its discretion to deny any award of costs to 3 15 defendants. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 17 Dated: February 8, 2024 18

P. Casey Pitts 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28