Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00895/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00895-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRA FAVELA et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

TARGET CORPORATION, and DOES 1-50

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-00895 WHA

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

REVIEW OF COSTS AND

VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this employment-discrimination action, defendant Target Corporation now moves for

review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs. This motion is GRANTED IN PART. Specifically, the

Clerk is directed to tax an additional $1,401.10 for the costs of deposition transcripts for the six

defense witnesses.

STATEMENT

 As noted in a previous order, this action was commenced on December 4, 2003 by

forty-five plaintiffs. Ten plaintiffs (Rogelio Ferrer, Luis Lopez Gamboa, Arturo Lopez, Filberto

Chan May, Juan Munoz, Oliva Munoz Torres, Antonio Vasquez, Eloia Vasquez, Armando

Velasco and Artemio Velasco) stipulated to dismissal of their claims on November 15, 2004. 

Another five plaintiffs (Maria del Carmen Delgadillo, Consuelo Ramirez Diaz, Estela Robles,

Tanya Medrano Segovia and Laura Sierra) stipulated to dismissal of their claims on March 22,

2005. Most of the thirty remaining plaintiffs (Elizabeth Alvarez, Elizabeth Morales Arcos,

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 147 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 5
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

Maria Barajas, Carmen Barrera, Raul Alvarez Cruz, Veronica Gutierrez De Lopez, Sergio

Delgadillo, Sandra Favela, Rocio Ginez, Araceli Gonzalez, Oliva Jimenez, Alejandra Lopez,

Jose A. Lopez Lozano, Humberto Marquez, Carmela Rosas Montes, Norma Ortiz, Ana

Oseguera, Anabel Martinez Ramirez, Feliman Ramirez, Maria Ramirez, Carmen Rodriquez,

Pedro Arango Rosas, Mordoqueo Herrera Sosa, Moises Vasquez, Ricardo Vasquez, Thelma EK

Yam and Pedro Tovar Zepeda) stipulated to dismissal of their claims on May 9, 2005. All the

stipulated dismissals provided that each side was to bear its own costs and attorney fees.

Summary judgment was subsequently granted with respect to the two remaining

plaintiffs: Maria Carmen Fausto Gonzalez and Cecilia Martinez. Judgment was entered on

May 10, 2005. On May 20, 2005, defendant Target filed its Bill of Costs, requesting

$56,350.19 in costs. On May 27, 2005, plaintiffs filed their objections. On June 22, 2005, the

Clerk assessed costs in the amount of $4,953.63.

Defendant now seeks review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs. Specifically, defendant

argues that it is entitled to recover (1) a $290.00 filing fee paid to the Sonoma Superior Court

prior to removing the action to this Court and (2) deposition-related expenses incurred in

connection with twenty-eight additional plaintiffs and six defense witnesses who were deposed

in preparation for the summary-judgment motion. Plaintiffs argue that the Clerk “got it exactly

right” (Opp. 8).

ANALYSIS

1. LEGAL STANDARD.

In relevant part, FRCP 54(d)(1) states:

Except when express provision therefor is made either in a statute

of the United States or in these rules, costs other than attorney’s

fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless

the court otherwise directs. 

This rule creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. Ass’n of

Mexican-American Educators v. State of Calif., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Under 28 U.S.C. 1920, taxable costs are: 

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees of the court reporter

for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily

obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 147 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and copies of

papers necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees

under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court

appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees,

expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under

section 1828 of this title.

In addition, the Civil Local Rules for the Northern District of California “provide standards for

interpreting the costs allowed under section 1920.” Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, 1993 WL

515879, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 1993)(Brazil, J.). 

2. STATE COURT FILING FEE.

Defendant argues that no provisions in either 28 U.S.C. 1920(1) or the Civil Local Rules

explicitly limit the recoverable filing fees to those paid in federal court. Plaintiff’s opposition is

silent on this issue. Civil Local Rule 54-3(a)(1) provides that: “[t]he Clerk’s filing fee is

allowable if paid by the claimant.” Here, “the Clerk’s filing fee” refers only to the fee paid to

the Clerk of this Court. Filing fees paid to other courts are not recoverable as costs. Thus, the

Clerk properly allowed only $150.00 in filing fees. Defendant’s motion is DENIED-IN-PART

with respect to this category.

3. DEPOSITION-RELATED EXPENSES.

Defendant asserts that plaintiffs’ claims were inextricably intertwined, such that all

thirty depositions taken in preparation for the summary-judgment motion were “necessarily

obtained.” Defendant further contends that the stipulated dismissals did not waive their right to

collect all recoverable costs from any plaintiffs who refused to settle. Plaintiffs argue

(predictably) that of the thirty plaintiffs deposed, twenty-eight stipulated to dismissal of their

claims on the condition that each side was to bear its own fees and costs. The Court agrees with

the Clerk that deposition-related expenses with respect to these twenty-eight plaintiffs are not

allowable costs.

First, defendant stipulated to bear its own costs with respect to these twenty-eight

plaintiffs. The Court will not go beyond the plain language of the stipulated dismissal. If they

had intended to collect all recoverable costs from any plaintiffs who did not settle, that should

have been made more explicit. Defendant’s interpretation of their stipulated dismissals is

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 147 Filed 07/22/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

illogical. If it was not waiving its right to collect costs with respect to the settling plaintiffs,

what fees and costs was it agreeing to bear?

Second, it is telling that defendant did not seek any costs incurred in connection with the

other fifteen plaintiffs who settled at an earlier stage of this litigation. Nor did they depose any

of these witnesses. If defendant truly believed that plaintiffs’ claims were so intertwined that

depositions of each were “necessarily obtained,” one would expect that all forty-five original

plaintiffs would have been deposed. 

Third, this order notes that the timing of the settlement suggests that defendant

knowingly waived costs as to these twenty-eight plaintiffs. The summary-judgment hearing

was held on April 28, 2005. The Court was ready to issue its order, but the parties requested

additional time to settle. The twenty-eight plaintiffs whose deposition-related expenses are in

dispute settled shortly thereafter. By this time, the deposition expenses for these plaintiffs had

already been incurred, yet defendant agreed to settle with (and bear its own fees and costs with

respect to) all plaintiffs but two.

For these reasons, this order holds that the Clerk properly disallowed recovery of

deposition-related costs for the plaintiffs who settled. Defendant’s motion is DENIED-IN-PART

with respect to these twenty-eight depositions.

* * *

As to the remaining two plaintiffs, this order notes that Civil Local Rule 54-3(c)(1)

normally allows only the cost of an original and one copy of any deposition. Here, however,

plaintiffs do not appear to object to the additional costs of videotapes or interpreters. In any

case, they have failed to file a timely motion for review of those costs, so the Clerk’s

determination is final. Civ. L.R. 54-5. Accordingly, costs of $4,203.40 shall be taxed for the

depositions of plaintiffs Maria Carmen Fausto Gonzalez and Cecilia Martinez.

* * *

In addition, the Court finds that the depositions of the six defense witnesses were

“necessarily obtained,” even if there were only two remaining plaintiffs. The Clerk did not

assess these costs because the declaration of Jeffrey Wohl submitted with defendant’s Bill of

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 147 Filed 07/22/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Costs did not separately identify which depositions were defense witnesses. These six were: 

Suzanne Coghlan, Carrie Kroon, Michael Sigala, Brandon Meese, Amber Williams and Nancy

Williams. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED-IN-PART with respect to these six depositions. 

Shipping or delivery charges and “extra” charges such as ASCII/Mini/E-transcripts, however,

are not allowed. Ishida Co., Ltd. v. Taylor, 2004 WL 2713067, at *1 (N.D. Cal.)(Fogel, J.). 

The costs allowed for these individuals shall be as follows:

Suzanne Coghlan $330.00

Carrie Kroon $150.00

Brandon Meese $225.00

Michael Sigala $272.25

Amber Williams $228.60

Nancy Williams $195.25

Total $1,401.10

The Clerk’s taxation of costs shall be adjusted accordingly.

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, defendant’s costs in the amount of $1,401.10 for the

deposition-related expenses incurred in connection with the six defense witnesses shall be

added to the $4,953.63 already assessed by the Clerk. It is hereby ORDERED that costs shall be

taxed in the total amount of $6,354.73. This order does not preclude defendant from enforcing

the previous award of $2,340.00 as a discovery sanction against plaintiff Cecilia Martinez.

The hearing on this motion, currently scheduled for AUGUST 4, 2005 AT 8:00 A.M., is

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2005 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 147 Filed 07/22/05 Page 5 of 5