Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01916/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01916-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:741 Shipping

---

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

LESTER A. FERREIRA, SR.

and EVA JEAN FERREIRA., No. 2:04-cv-1916-MCE-DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

M/V CCNI ANTOFAGASTA, her engines, 

tackle, apparel, furniture, etc., 

IN REM, COMPANIA CHILENA de 

NAVEGACION INTEROCEANIA S.A., 

PORT OF STOCKTON, and SECHSTE 

REEDEREI ALSTERUFER 26 GmbH &

CIE. KG,,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

This matter comes before the Court on the September 26, 2006

Bill of Costs submitted by Plaintiff Lester A. Ferreira Sr.

(hereinafter “Plaintiff”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, following

a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff reached on September 12,

2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01916-MCE -DAD Document 179 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 6
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

On August 17, 2007 the Court issued a Minute Order

indicating that Plaintiff had failed to state with specificity

the need for photocopies, trial exhibits and other

exemplifications for which reimbursement is requested. In

addition, the Court further observed that Plaintiff, in his Bill

of Costs, had failed to demonstrate any extraordinary

circumstances justifying the award of travel costs associated

with depositions in this case. Although the Court’s Minute Order

permitted Plaintiff to provide further supporting documentation

as to these items within twenty (20) days and allowed Plaintiff

to provide further support for these costs.

Plaintiff made no response to the Court’s Minute Order. 

Consequently, the Court will now determine the costs Plaintiff is

entitled to based upon Plaintiff’s original motion. Defendant

Sophie Rickmers Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & CIE KG submitted

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, claiming Plaintiff is not

entitled to recovery of costs, but urging the Court to award not

more than $2,880.78 should it conclude otherwise.

The Court has now reviewed Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs, along

with the documentation submitted in support thereof, and has

further reviewed Defendant’s objections. Costs are awarded to

Plaintiff as set forth below.

STANDARD

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

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

otherwise directs.” 

Case 2:04-cv-01916-MCE -DAD Document 179 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 6
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

As this language suggests, the ultimate decision on whether to

award costs is a matter within the court’s discretion. 

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

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

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 (9th Cir. 2002). Claims for cost items not

properly documented will generally not be allowed. English v.

Colorado Dept. Of Corrections, 248 F.3d 1002, 1013 (10th Cir.

2001).

ANALYSIS

Turning to the specific items of costs claimed by Plaintiff,

private process servers' fees are recoverable as costs. Alflex

Corp. v. Underwriters Lab., 914 F.2d 175 (9th Cir. 1990). Section

1920(1) allows "fees of the clerk and marshal" to be taxed as

costs, and a private process servers’ fees are now treated like

those of marshals for cost taxing purposes. Id. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s unopposed request for process servers’ fees in the

amount of $168.02 is GRANTED.

Defendants take issue with the costs incurred by Plaintiff

in obtaining the transcripts of depositions taken in this case. 

Plaintiff argues the majority of these depositions were not for

use at trial, and that daily copies of trial transcripts were

unnecessary. The cost of depositions is taxable pursuant to

Section 1920(2). Alflex Corp., 914 F.2d at 177. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01916-MCE -DAD Document 179 Filed 10/16/07 Page 3 of 6
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

The Ninth Circuit has instructed that "deposition costs are

taxable if they are reasonably necessary for trial." Evanow v.

M/V Neptune, 163 F.3d 1108, 1118 (9th Cir. 1998); see also

Washington State Dept. of Transp. v. Washington Natural Gas Co.,

Pacificorp, 59 F.3d 793, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) ("disallowance for

expenses of depositions not used at trial is within the district

court's discretion.") The cost of daily copies of trial

transcripts is recoverable if a daily transcript is indispensable

due to the length and complexity of trial. A.B.C. Packard, Inc.

v. General Motors Corp., 275 F.2d 63, 75 (9th Cir. 1960). 

Plaintiff has requested $5,806.93 for the court reporter’s

fees and other fees involved with obtaining depositions. The

Court finds this amount is inappropriate as the cost associated

with obtaining copies of the trial transcript ($142.76) was not

indispensable. Plaintiff failed to provide justification for

this expense as allowed by this Court’s Minute Order. 

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to only

$5,664.17 for deposition transcripts and associated costs.

Witness fees are taxable under Rule 54(d) and Sections 1920

and 1821, all of which govern the allowance of witness fees. 

Witness fees are limited to $40.00 per day, as set forth in

Section 1821. The travel expenses of witnesses are also taxable

under Section 1821.

Defendant objects to the amount Plaintiff seeks for attorney

travel costs for depositions. Section 1920 does not provide for

attorney travel expenses and cases have held such expenses are

not taxable as costs. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01916-MCE -DAD Document 179 Filed 10/16/07 Page 4 of 6
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

See City Bank of Honolulu v. Rivera Davila, 438 F.2d 1367, 1371

(1st Cir. 1971) (travel expenses for attending depositions were

not taxable as costs); Walters v. President and Fellows of

Harvard College, 692 F. Supp. 1440, 1442 (D. Mass. 1988)

("Section 1920 makes no provision for the recovery of traveling,

parking or miscellaneous expenses incurred by the prevailing

party's attorneys."); 10 Wright et al., Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2677 at 370-71; Willis Corroon Corp. v. United

Capitol Ins. Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5394 (N.D. Cal. 1998). 

Defendant’s objections are well taken and appropriate. Plaintiff

cannot recover the $8,982.50 sought for the travel expenses of

Plaintiff’s attorney. The Court will therefore reduce the total

amount of witness fees sought by Plaintiff to the allowable

amount of $1,764.82.

The final area of disagreement pertaining to awardable costs

pertains to fees for exemplification and copies of papers

necessarily obtained for use in this case. While such fees are

unquestionably proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), Defendant argues

Plaintiff has not stated with specificity the necessity of his

exemplification and copying expenses. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4)

enables a court to award copying costs for any document

"necessarily obtained for use in the case" and does not

specifically require that the copied document be introduced into

the record to be an allowable cost. Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Double

Rainbow Gourmet Ice Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1990). 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01916-MCE -DAD Document 179 Filed 10/16/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

The mere recitation of the phrase “necessarily incurred”, as

Plaintiff has done in his Bill of Costs, is not sufficient to

meet the requirements of Section 1920 and the supporting

authorities. El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v. Traylor Bros., 2007

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14440 (E.D. Cal. 2007). 

Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any specific

basis justifying the copying and exemplification costs he now

seeks. In its Minute Order, the Court allowed Plaintiff another

opportunity to make the necessary showing required for recovering

expenses for exemplifications and copies. Plaintiff neglected to

respond to the Minute Order. The Court finds that Plaintiff is

not entitled to the requested $6,997.61 in costs for

exemplifications and copies.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to recover

$7,597.01 in allowable costs. The judgment in this matter shall

be amended accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01916-MCE -DAD Document 179 Filed 10/16/07 Page 6 of 6