Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05499/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05499-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

ROSEANNE SAKAMOTO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEPHEN JOHNSON, Administrator, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-5499 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REVIEW OF CLERK’S

TAXATION OF COSTS

After defendant prevailed at trial, defendant submitted a bill of costs in the amount of

$13,286.18. Plaintiff filed objections to the bill of costs, and the Clerk taxed a total of $7,131.18.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs. Plaintiff’s motion states that

she is writing to learn whether the Clerk considered her objections, and also to request that the Court

deny the cost bill entirely because the Agency did not incur any costs, and because plaintiff cannot

afford to pay the bill. Defendant opposes plaintiff’s motion.

The Court denies plaintiff’s motion. (Docket No. 488). “Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption

in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party which may only be overcome by pointing to some

impropriety on the part of the prevailing party that would justify a denial of costs.” Russian River

Watershed Protection Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff has

not demonstrated any impropriety on defendant’s part, or any error in the Clerk’s taxation of costs.

Plaintiff’s assertion that defendant did not actually incur costs is unsupported, and indeed flatly

contradicted by defendant’s cost bill which was supported by a declaration by counsel. The Court also

Case 3:03-cv-05499-SI Document 492 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

finds that plaintiff has not shown that she cannot afford to pay the cost bill. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05499-SI Document 492 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2