Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01780/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01780-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD LEVINE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 CITY OF ALAMEDA ET AL,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-01780 CRB

ORDER ASSESSING COSTS

This Court has previously ruled on three motions for attorneys’ fees, one brought by

Defendant, and two brought by Plaintiff. In these rulings, the Court determined that

Plaintiff’s partial success on his claim for denial of due process entitled him to an award of

attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Specifically, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s

partial success entitled him to 17.3 percent of his request for attorneys’ fees.

In its previous order, the Court also instructed the parties to “meet and confer again in

an attempt to resolve their disputes over costs in an equitable and efficient manner” and, in

the event that such a resolution would not be possible, to “submit an amended bill of costs.” 

The parties have failed to meet and confer, as ordered by the Court. And only Defendant has

submitted an amended bill of costs.

Thus, Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s motions for costs are still pending before the Court. 

The Court declines to engage in a page-by-page and witness-by-witness analysis to determine

what portion of the costs claimed by the parties are attributable to each cause of action. 

Case 3:04-cv-01780-CRB Document 134 Filed 09/20/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

In their bill of costs, Defendant requested $3,995.12 in costs related to deposition

transcripts. This figure, however, represented a discounted amount based on the portion of the

transcripts that, in Defendant’s estimation, were related to the due process claim on which

Plaintiff ultimately prevailed. As noted above, the Court declines to engage in the page-by-page

analysis used by the Defendant. Therefore, the Court has incorporated into Plaintiff’s “requested

amount” the full cost of the depositions previously discounted by the Defendant — i.e. the first

and second deposition of Ed Levine, the first deposition of James Flint, and the first and second

deposition of Karen Willis.

G:\CRBALL\2004\1780\order re costs.wpd 2

Instead, the Court applies the formula used in its previous two rulings — i.e. that Plaintiff is

entitled to 17.3 percent of his costs based on his partial success, and conversely, that

Defendant is entitled to 82.7 percent of its costs based on its partial success — to the total

costs incurred by the parties. Applying these percentages, the Court finds that the parties are

entitled to recoup the following costs:

Plaintiff $9,825.05 requested x 0.173 = $ 1,699.73

Defendant ($4,102.40 requested1 x 0.827) + $551.56 (per stipulation) = $ 3,944.24

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for costs in the amount of

$1,699.73, and GRANTS Defendant’s motion for costs in the amount of $3,944.24.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01780-CRB Document 134 Filed 09/20/06 Page 2 of 2