Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01639/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01639-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

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

ROBERT SEPE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GORDON TRUCKING, INC.; ELWOOD 

HILL; and DOES 1-30, 

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-01639-TLN-CKD

ORDER DENYING COSTS

The matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants Gordon Trucking, Inc. and Elwood 

Hill’s bill of costs, and Plaintiff Robert Sepe, Jr.’s objections. (ECF Nos. 152 & 155.) 

Defendants were the prevailing parties by jury trial in this matter. Judgment was entered on 

September 16, 2015. (ECF No. 145.)

Under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54 (d)(1), the prevailing party in a lawsuit shall recover its costs 

“unless . . . a court order provides otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (d)(1). The rule creates a 

presumption that costs will be taxed against the losing party, but “vests in the district court discretion 

to refuse to award costs” if the losing party shows why costs should not be awarded. See Ass’n of 

Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591–92 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Defendants seek costs in the amount of $15,249.85, including: $1,168 for fees of the 

clerk; $934.04 for fees for service of summons and subpoena; $7,178.24 for transcript fees; 

Case 2:12-cv-01639-TLN-CKD Document 162 Filed 12/08/15 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

$5,326.99 for witness fees; and $624.58 for fees for exemplification and the costs of making 

copies. (ECF No. 152.)

Plaintiff argues as follows. First, under Local Rule 292: “Within fourteen (14) days after 

entry of judgment or order under which costs may be claimed, the prevailing party may serve on 

all other parties and file a bill of costs conforming to 28 U.S.C. § 1924.” Here, judgment was 

entered on September 16, 2015. Defendants’ bill of costs was not filed until October 28, 2015. 

Thus, filing of the bill of costs was untimely under Local Rule 292. 

Second, under Local Rule 292, “The cost bill shall itemize the costs claimed and shall be 

supported by a memorandum of costs and an affidavit of counsel that the costs claimed are 

allowable by law, are correctly stated, and were necessarily incurred.” No supporting

memorandum was filed by Defendants. Plaintiff argues the witness fee computation fails to 

provide a sufficient justification for costs. Specifically, no explanation is given for why Elwood 

Hill ($3629.27) was required to attend eleven days of trial. No explanation is given for the 

$1,377.72 listed in the “subsistence” column for Tami Rockholt, R.N., who attended one day of 

trial. The witness fees associated with Hill and Rockholt make up almost the entire costs amount 

for witnesses. There is also no itemization of the costs incurred for transcripts, which is the 

largest cost of the bill ($7,178.24). 

Third, Plaintiff argues that defense counsel has not submitted an affidavit representing that 

the costs are permissible, correctly stated, and were necessarily incurred. Plaintiff is correct, 

although the boilerplate costs bill itself includes a signed declaration from counsel attesting to 

essentially the same thing.

Fourth, equity concerns may override the presumption of cost recovery when the suit involves 

issues of substantial public importance; the issues are close and difficult; there is great economic 

disparity between the parties or a lack of financial resources by one party; the losing party’s case had

some merit; or imposition of costs may have a chilling effect on future litigation. Mexican-Am., 231 

F.3d at 591–92; Stanley v. Univ. of S. California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Plaintiff argues that in this case he is currently surviving on less than $15,000 per year in disability 

payments. Thus, there is economic disparity between Plaintiff and Gordon Trucking, Inc., which 

Case 2:12-cv-01639-TLN-CKD Document 162 Filed 12/08/15 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

Plaintiff avers is a “billion dollar corporation.” (ECF No. 155 at 4–5.) Plaintiff also argues this 

lawsuit was brought in good faith. 

Plaintiff has set forth valid reasons why costs should not be awarded to Defendants. 

Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s objections or otherwise provided support for those

representations in its bill of costs which are challenged by Plaintiff. Because Defendants’ bill of costs 

is untimely, the bill lacks a supporting memorandum, there is great economic disparity between the 

parties, and Plaintiff’s case was not without merit, Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 155) are 

SUSTAINED, and costs to Defendants (ECF No. 152) are DENIED. 

Dated: December 4, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-01639-TLN-CKD Document 162 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3