Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02582/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02582-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:30104 Marine Personal Injury - Jones Act

---

1

15-cv-2582-CAB (BLM)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J. CANNON,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUSTAL USA, LLC and UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-cv-2582-CAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO RE-TAX COSTS

[Doc. No. 148]

On October 24, 2017, the Court granted the motions for summary judgment filed by 

Defendants, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants and against 

Plaintiff. After the judgment, both Defendants filed bills of costs [Doc. Nos. 135, 137], 

each of which sought only fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily 

obtained for use in this case. Plaintiff objected to these costs [Doc. No. 139], and a hearing 

was held on November 21, 2017. On December 1, 2017, the Clerk of Court taxed costs of 

$8,158.97 in favor of Defendant United States of America, and of $6,134.83 in favor of 

Defendant Austal USA, LLC. [Doc Nos. 143, 144.] Plaintiff now moves to retax these 

costs.

“Unless a federal statute, [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], or a court order 

provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing 

party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Here, Plaintiff’s motion argues that Defendants did not 

Case 3:15-cv-02582-CAB-BLM Document 149 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15-cv-2582-CAB (BLM)

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

establish that they had a reasonable expectation that the depositions for which they sought 

costs of transcription would be used for trial preparation. However, attorneys for both 

Defendants signed declarations under penalty of perjury that the costs they sought were 

necessarily incurred, and Plaintiff even admits that he noticed 14 of the 22 depositions in 

question. Plaintiff offers no evidence or argument as to why these declarations were 

insufficient or erroneous, and the Court finds this objection to be frivolous. The Court 

declines to retax costs on this ground.

Plaintiff otherwise does not contest any of the particular costs awarded; he simply 

argues that the Court should exercise discretion to deny costs to Defendants. However, 

despite Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, there is no question that both Defendants were

the prevailing parties with respect to Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, Defendants are entitled 

to their costs from Plaintiff. None of Plaintiff’s other arguments persuade the Court that 

an exception to this rule is warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to re-tax costs is 

DENIED. 

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02582-CAB-BLM Document 149 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2