Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02304/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02304-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06CV02304

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS GORDON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV02304-IEG (WMC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

RETAX COSTS 

[Doc. No. 105]

vs.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is plaintiff Dennis Gordon’s motion to retax costs. For the

following reasons, the motion is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND

The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case and they need not

be repeated at length herein. Plaintiff Dennis Gordon brought this action alleging age

discrimination by his former employer (Prudential Financial, Inc.) and his former supervisors

(John Greene and Matthew Voelker). On July 24, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in

favor of defendants and closed the case. (Doc. No. 84.) On May 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion

asking the Court to reconsider its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 

(Doc. No. 162.) On August 1, 2008, after hearing oral argument, the Court denied plaintiff’s

motion. (Doc. No. 174.) Plaintiff filed an appeal on August 18, 2008. (Doc. No. 91.) Defendants

moved for attorney fees on August 18, 2008 (Doc. No. 86.) The Court vacated the hearing on that

Case 3:06-cv-02304-IEG-WMC Document 112 Filed 11/04/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 06CV02304

motion on September 3, 2008, and ordered the motion denied on October 8, 2008. (Doc. No. 111.)

Defendants filed their Notice of Application for Bill of Costs on August 8, 2008. (Doc.

No. 88,) and requested $16, 878.17 for “Other Costs.” (Order Taxing Costs at 2.) Plaintiff filed

an objection on August 26, 2008 (Doc. No. 96) and the Clerk of Court’s office held a telephonic

hearing on the motion with the parties on August 28, 2008. During that conference the Clerk

determined that defendants were requesting $960.00 for “Fees of the Clerk” and $15,918.17 for

“Fees of the Court Reporter.” (Order Taxing Costs at 2.) Defense counsel was at that time

ordered to file additional documentation regarding court reporter transcripts as discussed during

the hearing. The Clerk of Court held a further telephonic Bill of Costs hearing on September 9,

2008. 

The Clerk of Court entered an order taxing costs against plaintiff in the amount of

$14,874.67 on September 10, 2008. (Doc. No. 104.) This amount included “Fees of the Clerk” in

the amount of $960.00 and other costs totaling $13, 914.67 incurred in obtaining copies of the

deposition transcripts of the following individuals: (1) Plaintiff Dennis Gordon (Volumes 1-3); (2)

Sharon Taylor; (3) Cheryl Kern; (4) John W. Greene; (5) Matthew John Voelker (Volumes 1 & 2);

and (6) Suzy Burnham. Out of the $15,918.17 in “Fees of the Court Reporter” defendants initially 

requested be taxed, the Clerk denied the following: (1) an unedited ASCII (RT) copy of Volume 1

of Dennis Gordon’s deposition ($290.00); (2) fax services related to the same deposition ($55.00);

(3) an unedited ASCII (RT) copy of Volume 2 of Dennis Gordon’s deposition ($300.00); (4) an

unedited ASCII (RT) copy of Volume 3 of Dennis Gordon’s deposition ($357.50); and (5) a “4-

day expedite” service related to the same deposition ($1,001.00). (Order Taxing Costs at 2-4).

Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Retax Costs on September 15, 2008 (Doc. No. 105.) 

Defendants opposed the motion on September 30, 2008 (Doc. No. 108,) and plaintiff replied on

October 3, 2008. (Doc. No. 110.) Plaintiff’s motion is based on the memorandum of points and

authorities and other accompanying documents that plaintiff filed in connection with his August

26, 2008 Opposition to Cost Bill (Motion at 1-2,) but does not specifically address any of the

Clerk’s rulings from the September 10 order. Plaintiff’s Reply specifically requests the court

deny: (1) all costs associated with copies of depositions, except the deposition of Dennis Gordon;

Case 3:06-cv-02304-IEG-WMC Document 112 Filed 11/04/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 06CV02304

(2) costs of state filing fees; and (3) ASCII deposition costs. (Reply at 4).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Retax Costs does not specify any ruling of the Clerk to which he takes

exception, as required by Local Rule 54.1(h)(2). That Rule provides: “A motion to retax shall

particularly specify the ruling of the clerk excepted to and no other will be considered at the

hearing. . . .” CivLR 54.1(h)(2). Plaintiff, in his Reply states his Motion to Retax “incorporates

all of the opposition papers filed with respect to Defendants’ cost bill” (Reply at 2,) and that those

initial objections remain extant, making him fully compliant with the Local Rule.

District Courts promulgate Local Rules primarily to promote judicial efficiency, and have

considerable discretion in interpreting and applying these rules. Lance, Inc. v. Dewco Services,

Inc., 422 F.2d 778, 783-84 (9th Cir. 1970) (holding although a referee in bankruptcy failed to

comply with one District Court Local Rule when it prematurely approved a creditor’s proposed

findings, conclusions of law, and judgment, it still could have been permissibly acting within its

discretion under a separate Local Rule.) Notwithstanding that discretion, when a Local Rule

requires that a party moving to retax costs specify the ruling(s) excepted to, and the party merely

repeats the same arguments previously made to the court, including the objections upon which he

has already prevailed, a motion to retax costs is appropriately denied. Westbrook v. GES

Exposition Services, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32131 (D. Nev. 2007) (denying plaintiff’s

“Renewed and Improved Opposition to Bill of Costs” because “Plaintiff merely reiterate[d] the

exact arguments made to the Clerk of the Court, including the objections he had already prevailed

on.”)

In the instant case, plaintiff’s Motion to Retax Costs contains no mention of any particular

ruling made by the Clerk in the September 10, 2008 Order. (Doc. No. 104.) In fact, plaintiff’s

Motion only briefly reiterates the arguments he made in his initial Opposition to Cost Bill and

states that all support for the Motion to Retax lies in that initial Opposition. In his Reply, plaintiff

briefly states that he takes exception to the award of costs for all depositions except that of Dennis

Gordon, and requests “that the state filing fees be denied; and that the ASCII deposition costs also

be denied.” (Reply at 4.) Plaintiff’s Reply does not acknowledge that the Clerk had already

Case 3:06-cv-02304-IEG-WMC Document 112 Filed 11/04/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 06CV02304

denied ASCII costs to defendant pursuant to plaintiff’s prior objection. His blanket Motion to

Retax also includes by reference an objection to two other charges on which he had already

prevailed, “Fax Services” of $55.00, and as well as a “Four Day Expedite” charge of $1,001, both

of which the Clerk denied defendant. (Order Taxing Costs at 2-4.) 

If plaintiff wished to move to retax every one of the Clerk’s rulings, except for those

objections upon which he had already prevailed, he should have specified the remaining rulings to

which he objected in his Motion to Retax. If every party with broad objections to an Order Taxing

Costs simply referred the Court to its initial Opposition to the prevailing party’s Bill of Costs, Rule

51.4(h) requiring parties to make specific exceptions to the Clerk’s ruling would have no purpose. 

Because plaintiff’s Motion to Retax Costs fails to specify the rulings of the Clerk excepted to in

accordance with Local Rule 54.1(h)(2) and includes objections upon which he has already

prevailed, the Court DENIES the Motion.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s Motion to Retax Costs. If

plaintiff wishes to file an amended motion that complies with Local Rule 54.1(h)(2), he must do so

by Monday, November 24, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 4, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-02304-IEG-WMC Document 112 Filed 11/04/08 Page 4 of 4