Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03608/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03608-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1127 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Motor Works, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Safer Technologies, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 08-03608 JW 

ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER

DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT

PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF COST

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs. (hereafter,

“Objection,” Docket Item No. 111.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff insufficiently supported

Plaintiff’s claims for costs in this case. On June 8, 2010, the Court entered Judgment in favor of

Plaintiff against Defendants Safer Technologies, Inc. and Cerma Technology, Inc. (Docket Item No.

109.) On June 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of the Court. (Docket Item No.

110.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides that “costs-other than attorney’s fees-should be

allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). In addition, Civil Local Rule 54-1 provides

that no later than 14 days after entry of judgment, a prevailing party claiming costs must serve and

file a bill of costs with “[a]ppropriate documentation to support each item claimed.” Civ. L.R. 54-

1(a). The Bill of Costs form provides that parties should “attach . . . an itemization and documents

for requested costs in all categories.” See Bill of Costs: U.S. District Court for the Northern District

of California. However, certain categories of costs are limited. See Civ. L.R. 54-3. For example,

“reporters’ transcripts” costs are recoverable in only two categories: (1) transcripts necessarily

obtained for an appeal, and (2) transcripts of a statement by a Judge from the bench which is to be

Case 5:08-cv-03608-JW Document 118 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 (See Docket Item No. 110.) The itemization in the Bill of Costs is as follows:

Fees of the Clerk $ 350.00

Fees for service of summons and subpoena $ 950.00

Fees for printed or electronically recorded 

transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case $ 3161.50

Fees and disbursements for printing $ 461.25

Fees for witnesses $ 4346.00

Other Costs $ 451.12

2

 Defendants contend that the Plaintiff’s claimed costs for transcripts do not fall within one

of the two permissible categories in Civil Local Rule 54-3(b). (Objection at 2.) Defendants contend

that Plaintiff was required to obtain leave of the Court or prior stipulation to claim these costs. 

See Civ. L.R. 54-3(b). The Court has not granted Plaintiff leave to recover costs for printed

transcripts and to the extent that there is no stipulation granting Plaintiff recovery for such fees, the

Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to costs for transcripts under Civil Local Rule 54-3(b)(1) and

(b)(2). 

3

 Defendants contends that Plaintiff’s claim of $1,973.00 for John Murray is impermissible

since John Murray is a “party to this case.” (Objection at 2-3.) The Court finds that Plaintiff is

barred from receiving costs associated with John Murray because John Murray was a party to the

counterclaims. 

2

reduced to a formal order prepared by counsel. Civ. L.R. 54-3(b)(1)-(2). “The cost of other

transcripts is not normally allowable unless, before it is incurred, it is approved by a Judge or

stipulated to be recoverable by counsel.” Civ. L.R. 54-3(b)(3).

Here, Plaintiff submitted a Bill of Costs with categories of costs, such as “fees of the Clerk”

and “fees for witnesses” totaling $9,719.87.1

 However, Plaintiff did not provide any further

itemization or documentation to support each cost claimed as required by Civil Local Rule 54-1(a)

and the Bill of Cost form itself. (Id.) Defendants object to the Bill of Cost based on lack of

supporting documentation with respect to the following categories of costs: (1) fees for service of

summons and subpoena; (2) fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts; (3) fees and

disbursements for printing; (4) fees for witnesses; and (5) “other” costs. (Objection at 2-3.) 

Additionally, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s costs under “fees for printed or electronically recorded

transcripts”2

 and “ fees for witnesses.”3 

Case 5:08-cv-03608-JW Document 118 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently complied with the requirements of Civil

Local Rule 54-1(a) and the Bill of Costs form. Plaintiff has provided no documentation to support

its Bill of Costs. (See Bill of Costs.) Accordingly, on or before August 6, 2010, Plaintiff shall

submit to the Clerk of Court an amended Bill of Cost form with supporting documentation and

detailed itemization in accordance with the terms of this Order.

Dated: July 26, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-03608-JW Document 118 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

James Mitchell Hanavan craigielaw@aol.com

Robert Chipley Weems rcweems@weemslawoffices.com

Dated: July 26, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:08-cv-03608-JW Document 118 Filed 07/26/10 Page 4 of 4