Stroud v. Gore

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WILLARD RICHARD STROUD, JR., Case No.: 18-CV-515-JLS (MDD)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER APPROVING 12 v. APPLICATION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF 13 SHERIFF WILLIAM D. GORE, et al., EXPENSES PURSUANT TO 14 Defendants. CIVIL LOCAL RULE 83.8(a)(2)

15 (ECF No. 139) 16 17

18 Presently before the Court is the Application for Reimbursement of Expenses 19 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.8(a)(2) of Plaintiff Willard Richard Stroud, Jr.’s 20 (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Stroud”) Court-appointed pro bono counsel, Joseph Barbarie (“Appl.,” 21 ECF No. 139). 22 On October 13, 2022, this Court appointed Mr. Barbarie, a member of this District’s 23 Pro Bono Panel, to represent Plaintiff. See ECF No. 119; Declaration of Joseph Barbarie 24 (“Barbarie Decl.,” ECF No. 139-1) ¶ 2. Thereafter, Mr. Barbarie prepared a trial brief, 25 pretrial disclosures, and a joint proposed pretrial order; attended and participated in the 26 January 12, 2023 Final Pretrial Conference; prepared a settlement brief; and attended and 27 participated in a successful February 17, 2023 Mandatory Settlement Conference before 28 Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin. See ECF Nos. 123, 125, 130, 131, 132, 133. Mr. 1 Barbarie now seeks reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the 2 representation totaling $1,126.50. See Appl. at 1. That figure represents Mr. Barbarie’s 3 half of the cost for a transcript of a criminal trial in which Mr. Stroud was the defendant 4 that involved the same nucleus of facts underlying the instant civil rights action. See 5 Barbarie Decl. ¶¶ 3–4. Mr. Barbarie and the Office of County Counsel agreed to split this 6 cost. See id. ¶ 4; id. Exs. A–C. In Plaintiff’s pretrial disclosures, Mr. Barbarie listed the 7 trial transcript as an exhibit he planned to offer at trial in this matter. See ECF No. 125 at 8 2. 9 Civil Local Rule 83.8(a)(2)(a) permits, upon application and approval by the Court, 10 “reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, necessarily incurred by court-appointed 11 attorneys representing indigents pro bono in civil cases not covered by the Criminal Justice 12 Act.” Civil Local Rule 93.8(a)(2)(a) specifically contemplates that such out-of-pocket 13 expenses may include costs that are recoverable by a prevailing party. See id. Courts in 14 other civil rights actions have found the cost of the transcript from the underlying criminal 15 trial reasonably necessary and hence recoverable if, for instance, the transcript was relied 16 upon in summary judgment. See, e.g., Dickerson v. City of Portland, No. 3:19-CV-01126- 17 SB, 2021 WL 408091, at *2–3 (D. Or. Feb. 5, 2021) (finding cost of transcripts of the 18 plaintiff’s criminal trial recoverable by prevailing parties in civil rights action when 19 transcript was cited in summary judgment briefing); Huerta v. Cnty. of Tulare, No. 1:17- 20 CV-01446-EPG, 2022 WL 1093582, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2022) (awarding as part of 21 civil contempt sanction reduced criminal trial transcript costs “that defense counsel would 22 have ordered . . . in any event given the connection to the pending civil case,” a section 23 1983 excessive force action). 24 Here, it appears the cost of obtaining the transcript from Mr. Stroud’s criminal trial 25 was necessarily incurred given the factual connection between the criminal trial and the 26 instant civil rights action and the fact that Mr. Barbarie designated the transcript as a 27 potential trial exhibit. See Barbarie Decl. ¶ 4; ECF No. 125 at 2. That the Office of County 28 Counsel agreed to pay half the cost of obtaining the transcript of the criminal trial further 1 || supports the conclusion that obtaining the transcript was necessary to the resolution of this 2 ||case. Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Barbarie’s share of the cost of the criminal trial 3 || transcript was necessarily incurred and accordingly is reimbursable under Civil Local Rule 4 || 83.8(a)(2)(a). 5 In light of the foregoing and good cause appearing, the Court APPROVES Mr. 6 || Barbarie’s Application (ECF No. 139). The Clerk of the Court SHALL FORWARD a 7 ||copy of this Order to the Court’s Financial Supervisor to facilitate the disbursement of a 8 check in the amount of $1,126.50 from the Pro Bono Fund to Mr. Barbarie in accordance 9 || with Civil Local Rules 83.8(b)(1) and 83.8(c)(2). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: May 9, 2023 . tt f Le 12 on. Janis L. Sammartino 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28