Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01097/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01097-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMOND SARKIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

YOLO COUNTY PUBLIC AGENCY 

RISK MANAGEMENT INSURANCE 

AUTHORITY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Yolo County Public Agency Risk 

Management Insurance Authority (“YCPARMIA”) and Jill Cook’s (“Cook”) (collectively, 

“Defendants”) Bill of Costs. (ECF No. 77.) Plaintiff Armond Sarkis (“Plaintiff”) filed 

objections. (ECF No. 78.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ costs are GRANTED in 

part and DENIED in part.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP Document 79 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 5
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

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging various federal and state 

claims. (ECF No. 1.) On November 7, 2023, Defendants sent Plaintiff an Offer of Judgment 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 68, which Plaintiff did not accept. (ECF 

No. 77-1 at 2.) On August 26, 2024, the magistrate judge assigned to this case issued findings 

and recommendations recommending, in relevant part, that Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 61) be granted as to Plaintiff’s federal claims.

1

 (ECF No. 71.) On September 

25, 2024, this Court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in full, and the 

case was closed. (ECF No. 76.) On October 8, 2024, Defendants submitted the instant Bill of 

Costs. (ECF No. 77.) On October 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 78.) 

II. STANDARD OF LAW

Under Rule 54(d)(1), the prevailing party in a lawsuit shall recover its costs “unless . . . a 

court order provides otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The rule creates a presumption that 

costs will be taxed against the losing party, but “vests in the district court discretion to refuse to 

award costs” if the losing party shows why costs should not be awarded. See Ass’n of MexicanAm. Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000).

A prevailing party’s ability to recover costs under Rule 54(d)(1) is limited by 28 U.S.C. § 

1920 and, in the Eastern District, by Local Rule 292. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920; E.D. Cal. L.R. 

292(f); see also Crane-McNab v. Cty. of Merced, No. 1:08-cv-1218-WBS-SMS, 2011 WL 

794284, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2011) (“Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and Local Rule 292 govern the taxation of costs to losing parties, which are generally subject to 

limits set under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.”). 28 U.S.C. § 1920 enumerates which fees and expenses the 

Court may tax as costs. Local Rule 292(a) prescribes that “[c]osts shall be taxed in conformity 

with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1920” and Local Rule 292(f) provides a list of specific fees 

and expenses that are taxable as costs. E.D.Cal. L.R. 292(a), (f). 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) provides 

1 The magistrate judge also recommended the Court decline to continue exercising 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and they be dismissed 

without prejudice. (ECF No. 71 at 10.)

Case 2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP Document 79 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 5
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

that courts may tax as costs “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any 

materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” If the court declines to 

award costs, it must specify its reasons for doing so. Berkla v. Corel Corp., 302 F.3d 909, 921 

(9th Cir. 2002). 

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff makes several general and specific objections to Defendants’ Bill of Costs. (ECF 

No. 78-1.) The Court will consider each in turn. 

i. Plaintiff’s General Objections

First, Plaintiff argues Defendants are not prevailing parties because Plaintiff’s state law 

claims, which were dismissed without prejudice, are currently being litigated in Yolo County 

Superior Court, Case No. CV2024-2614. (ECF No. 78 at 2.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s 

argument unpersuasive as all of Plaintiff’s federal claims were dismissed, and Plaintiff’s case in 

this Court was subsequently closed. (ECF Nos. 75, 76.) The fact that Plaintiff was allowed to 

proceed with his state law claims in state court does not mean that Defendants did not prevail in 

the case before this Court. 

Next, Plaintiff argues Defendants’ Offer of Judgment does not justify an award of costs. 

(ECF No. 78 at 3.) As part of Plaintiff’s argument,

2 Plaintiff concedes Defendants are entitled to 

costs incurred after November 7, 2023, the date Defendants issued the Offer of Judgment. (Id. at 

4.) Plaintiff correctly identifies that the only cost incurred after November 7, 2023, in 

Defendants’ Bill of Costs is the cost for the deposition transcript of Marina Miahlevsky (“Ms. 

Miahlevsky”). (Id., ECF No. 77-1 at 2–4.) Accordingly, the only cost which Defendant is 

entitled to recover under Rule 68(d) is the cost for the transcript of the deposition of Ms. 

Miahlevsky. 

Finally, Plaintiff argues given the substantial public interest of the case, the closeness and 

difficulty of the issues, the potential for chilling effect on future actions, Plaintiff’s limited 

2 The majority of Plaintiff’s contentions in this section are not comprehendible to the Court 

(id.) and thus, are not addressed. 

Case 2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP Document 79 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 5
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

resources,

3

and the economic disparity between the parties, the Court should deny Defendants’ 

Bill of Costs in its entirety or, alternatively, significantly reduce the costs requested. (Id. at 4–5.) 

As previously discussed, the only cost which Defendant is entitled to recover under Rule 68(d) is 

the cost for the transcript of the deposition of Ms. Miahlevsky, which amounts to $960.00 and is

significantly less than $6,997.55, the amount Defendants requested in their Bill of Costs. (See 

ECF No. 77-1.) Plaintiff fails to persuade the Court a further reduction is warranted. 

ii. Plaintiff’s Specific Objections

As the only cost that Defendant is entitled to recover under Rule 68(d) is the cost for the 

transcript of the deposition of Ms. Miahlevsky, the Court only addresses Plaintiff’s specific 

objection regarding that cost. 

Plaintiff argues the deposition of Ms. Miahlevsky was unnecessary and unreasonable as it 

was not required by the Court, nor was it indispensable to the litigation. (ECF No. 78 at 6.) 

Defendants maintain the deposition was necessary to form the Defendants’ strategy. (ECF No. 

77-1 at 3.) The Court does not have sufficient information to reach a determination as to whether 

the deposition was unreasonable, nor does it find it necessary to do so as Defendant is entitled to 

costs incurred after the issuance of its Offer of Judgment per Rule 68(d). As the cost for the 

deposition of Ms. Miahlevsky was incurred after November 7, 2023, Defendant is entitled to 

recover the cost.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Bill of Costs is GRANTED as to the cost for the transcript of 

the deposition of Marina Miahlevsky, which amounts to $960.00, and DENIED as to all other 

costs. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ Bill of Costs (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED as 

to the cost for the transcript of the deposition of Marina Miahlevsky, which amounts to $960.00,

and DENIED as to all other costs.

//

3 Plaintiff argues, without any support, he has limited resources compared to YCPARMIA. 

(Id. at 5 (emphasis added).)

Case 2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP Document 79 Filed 12/06/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: December 5, 2024

___________________________________

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP Document 79 Filed 12/06/24 Page 5 of 5