Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01993/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01993-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Recovery of IRS Tax

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISION SERVICE PLAN,

NO. CIV. S-04-1993 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

On December 13, 2005, the court granted defendant’s motion for

summary judgment. On December 23, 2005, the government filed a

bill of costs. The court is in receipt of Vision Service Plan’s

(“VSP”) objections to this bill of costs. Specifically, VSP argues

that it should not have to pay for depositions that were not

referred to by either party in the summary judgment briefing.

Defendant has filed a reply to these objections. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 allow the award of

certain costs, including deposition costs, to the prevailing party.

Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Lab., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 176 (9th

Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 812 (1991). Disallowance for

Case 2:04-cv-01993-LKK -JFM Document 105 Filed 05/03/06 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

 Defendant points out that eleven of the thirteen deponents 1

at issue were named by plaintiff as persons possessing material

knowledge. Def.’s Repl. at 9. Further, the court points out that

our system relies on liberal discovery rules to define the disputed

facts and issues, so it is not unusual for litigants to depose

witnesses even if those depositions are not utilized in law and

motion practice.

2

expenses of depositions not used at trial is within the district

court's discretion. Washington State Dept. of Transp. v.

Washington Natural Gas Co., 59 F.3d 793, 806 (9th Cir. 1995)

(citation omitted).

Having considered the parties’ arguments, the court agrees

with defendant and awards it the full amount of the deposition

costs set forth in its bill of costs. Plaintiff argues that

thirteen of the thirty-four depositions taken by the parties were

unnecessary because neither parties cited to those depositions in

their motions for summary judgment. They further assert that

defendant is not entitled to costs related to those thirteen

depositions because Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 limits depositions to ten

per side. As defendant explains, however, the parties agreed

through written stipulation as to the number of depositions

allowed. Further, based on the court’s examination of the record,

the court finds the depositions at issue to be reasonably necessary

as most of the individuals defendant deposed were listed by

plaintiff in their initial disclosures as possessing discoverable

information.1

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s objections to

defendant’s bill of costs are DENIED. The court GRANTS the United

Case 2:04-cv-01993-LKK -JFM Document 105 Filed 05/03/06 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

3

States’ full deposition costs. The United States’ bill of costs

is TAXED in the amount of $22,340.35.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 2, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01993-LKK -JFM Document 105 Filed 05/03/06 Page 3 of 3