Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00745/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00745-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

----oo0oo----

TONY MARTINEZ,

No. 2:02-cv-0745-MCE-JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC., dba

RITE AID CORPORATION, et al.

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Tony Martinez, as the prevailing party in this

litigation, has filed a Bill of Costs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1920, in the amount of $2,119.50. Defendant Thrifty Payless,

Inc. dba Rite Aid Corporation (“Rite Aid”) has objected to

certain portions of that costs bill.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the prevailing

party in a lawsuit may recover its costs “unless the court

otherwise directs”. As this language suggests, the ultimate

decision on whether to award costs is a matter within the court’s

discretion. 

Case 2:02-cv-00745-MCE -JFM Document 69 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of Calif., 231

F.3d 572, 591-92 (9 Cir. 2000). If the court declines to award th

costs as requested by the prevailing party, however, it should

specify its reasons for doing so. Berkla v. Corel Corp., 302

F.3d 909, 921 (9 Cir. 2002). th

Here the Court need only address the two specific items

objected to by Rite Aid in response to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs.

Both objections pertain to costs claimed by Plaintiff for

deposition transcripts and stem from the fact that Plaintiff’s

counsel took said depositions for the purpose of using them in

multiple cases and not solely for the matter presently before the

Court. 

First, Rite Aid objects to Plaintiff claiming the entire

cost of the Paul Ross deposition transcript. Rite Aid points to

the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel took Mr. Ross’s deposition not

only for the instant case, but also for use in Peters v. Thrifty

Payless, Inc. dba Rite Aid #6070, CIV. S-02-1645 WBS GGH (E.D.

Cal. March 11, 2004), an entirely unrelated matter that

Plaintiff’s counsel was simultaneously litigating. Indeed, while

taking Mr. Ross’s deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel himself stated

that he was acting in representation of both the Peters plaintiff

and Plaintiff herein. (Ross Dep., 4:21-22). Consequently, 

because this should have only been charged for one half the cost

of the Ross deposition transcript, the Court will deduct $98.13

from Plaintiff’s claimed costs.

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-00745-MCE -JFM Document 69 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Similarly, Rite Aid objects to Plaintiff’s attempt to

recover the entire cost of the Robert Timberlake deposition

because that deposition was taken for, and subsequently used in,

four other cases. In support of its objection, Rite Aid again

points to a statement made by Plaintiff’s counsel in which he

acknowledges that the Timberlake deposition is being taken in

connection with his representation of five separate clients. 

(Timberlake Dep., 4:22-25). In addition, the invoice issued by

Esquire Deposition Services indicates that the transcript was

requested for use in multiple matters. (Pl.’s Bill of Costs,

12). Consequently, the cost of the deposition transcript must be

divided among the five cases for which it was used. As such,

$376.00 will be deducted from the $470.00 requested for the

Timberlake deposition transcript. 

Given the foregoing, costs are taxed in favor of Plaintiff

as stated in his Bill of Costs, except $474.13 is deducted from

the costs claimed for the deposition transcripts. Total costs

are hence awarded in the sum of $1,645.37.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 7, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00745-MCE -JFM Document 69 Filed 02/08/06 Page 3 of 3