Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00109/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00109-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1 

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT KURT SCHERER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., 

KRAUSE, INC., AND DOES 1-100, 

 Defendants. /

No. Civ. S-04-0109 DFL GGH 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

Prevailing defendants Home Depot and Krause have submitted 

bills of costs following their successful defense of this action 

before a jury. “[C]osts other than attorneys’ fees shall be 

allowed as of course to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(d)(1). Local Rule 54-292(b) provides that a bill of costs 

“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.” Prevailing defendants Krause and Home 

Depot request costs of $22,621.01 and $14,449.75, respectively, 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 349 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 6
2 

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

and they have filed the required memoranda and declarations. 

Given the length of trial and the nature of the issues, the 

total costs claimed are quite modest. 

Plaintiff makes no argument that defendants are not 

generally entitled to recover their costs, but he objects to the 

reasonableness or appropriateness of some of the cost items 

detailed in defendants’ supporting declarations. Plaintiff 

cites no legal authority to support any of his objections. 

A. Objections to Krause’s Costs

Copying Charges: 

Plaintiff objects to photocopying charges because “he is 

unable to determine whether these costs were necessary to the 

defense of the case.” A prevailing party may recover necessary 

copying costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4); LR 54-292(f)(5). Krause’s 

attorney, Ron Haven, has submitted a declaration setting out the 

various copying charges incurred and avering that “each cost . . 

. has been necessarily incurred in this matter and the services 

for which the following fees have been charged were actually and 

necessarily performed.” Haven Decl. (doc # 339-4) ¶ 4. 

Plaintiff’s speculative suggestion that the expense listed in 

Item E “seem[s] unlikely” is inadequate reason to question an 

attorney’s sworn statement that it was necessarily incurred when 

the costs themselves are reasonable on their face. 

Photography Charges: 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 349 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiff objects to certain claimed photography charges. 

The costs of preparing photographs are allowable under § 1920. 

Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal 

Practice and Procedure § 2677. Nevertheless, plaintiff objects 

to the following photographic and other document-related costs 

listed in Ron Haven’s declaration: 

K, L, R, U, EE, GG, LL, MM, PP, QQ, RR, TT, UU, VV, WW: 

Plaintiff states that he is unaware of why the items were 

reproduced and/or speculates that the costs involved were 

unnecessary. Plaintiff’s objections rest on an implicit demand 

for greater detail about each cost item than the local rules 

require Krause to provide. 

W, Y: Plaintiff asserts that “there should not be a charge 

for scanning and e mailing [sic] documents.” The charges at 

issue are for $31.57 and $55.09. Plaintiff provides no 

authority for the proposition that the costs of electronic 

document production are not recoverable. 

S, XX: Plaintiff asserts that these costs – $141.43 to 

print the contents of a CD and $3,840 to produce Dr. Quan’s 

trial exhibit boards – are excessive. Plaintiff’s objection to 

the $141.43 printing charges is without merit. Although the 

$3,840 charge is high, Dr. Quan’s testimony was central to the 

defense and preparation of trial exhibit boards of several 

thousand dollars was a reasonable method of illustrating his 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 349 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 6
4 

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

testimony. Indeed, one can imagine that more expensive 

animations might have been prepared. 

Depositions: 

Plaintiff objects to various deposition-related charges 

detailed in Ron Haven’s declaration in support of reimbursement 

for deposition fees (doc # 339-2), as follows: 

8(A): $112.55 for documenting the nonappearance of Lindley 

Manning at his deposition. 

8(B): $100.80 for documenting nonappearance of Russell 

Darnell at his deposition. 

8(C): $4,950.42 for transcripts of Dr. Darnell’s deposition

8(D): transcript and witness fees for Thomas Sartoris’ 

deposition. 

8(E): costs associated with the second day of Dr. Balser’s 

deposition. 

Plaintiff’s objections to these cost items are not 

persuasive. 

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Krause $22,621 in costs as 

requested. 

B. Objections to Home Depot’s Costs

Clerk’s Fees: 

Plaintiff objects to paying $180.00 for Sherry Rasmus’s pro 

hac vice application. Pro hac vice fees may be recoverable as 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 349 Filed 04/10/07 Page 4 of 6
5 

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

costs. Davis v. Puritan-Bennett Corp., 923 F.Supp. 179, 181 (D. 

Kan. 1996). 

Docket Fees: 

Plaintiff objects to unspecified docket fees. It is 

unclear which cost items this objection refers to. At any rate, 

docket fees are recoverable under § 1920(5). 

Exemplification and Copying Charges: 

Plaintiff objects to various copying charges on grounds 

that he does not know exactly what was copied and that “[i]t was 

defendant’s choice to enlarge and make boards of ordinary 

documents; this should not be plaintiff’s burden herein.” As 

discussed above, copying charges are recoverable, and Home Depot 

has complied with LR 54-292. 

Deposition Transcripts: 

Plaintiff objects to paying costs associated with the 

second, third and fourth days of Dr. Darnell’s deposition. He 

asserts that the deposition took so long because Home Depot’s 

attorney was unprepared. Home Depot counters that the 

deposition was extended because Dr. Darnell was unprepared. 

Plaintiff’s submission does not persuade the court that the 

multi-day deposition was the result of abusive discovery tactics 

by defendant. This cost shall be awarded in full. 

Service of Process: 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 349 Filed 04/10/07 Page 5 of 6
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

Plaintiff objects to paying costs associated with serving 

members of his family because “each of them would have been 

willing to sit for a deposition without a subpoena or have 

allowed Plaintiff’s counsel to accept service on their behalf.” 

Home Depot responds that plaintiff never volunteered to make 

these witnesses available, and that one member of plaintiff’s 

family failed to attend her deposition despite being subpoenaed. 

Home Depot’s decision to subpoena these witnesses was 

reasonable. 

Plaintiff’s objections to Home Depot’s costs are not 

persuasive. Home Depot seeks a total of $14,449.75, which is a 

reasonable sum given the length and complexity of the trial. 

Based on the sworn declarations of Home Depot’s counsel, the 

court is satisfied that each of the costs Home Depot requests 

was necessarily incurred. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Home 

Depot costs in the amount of $14,449.75. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 9, 2007 

 /s/ David F. Levi___________

 DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 349 Filed 04/10/07 Page 6 of 6