Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02921/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02921-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

----oo0oo----

THERESA MARIE NIESEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. GARCIA, YOLO COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPUTY; J. CEJA, 

YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTY; 

J. LAZARO, YOLO COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPUTY; M. NEVIS, 

YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTY; 

OFFICER BIGELOW, ANIMAL 

CONTROL OFFICER FOR YOLO 

COUNTY; YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT; YOLO COUNTY 

PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and 

Does 1 through 50, et al.,

 Defendants.

Civ. No. 2:14-2921 WBS CKD

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Judgment was entered in favor of defendants on July 12, 

2016. (Docket No. 31.) On July 13, 2016, defendants submitted a

Bill of Costs pursuant to Local Rule 292(b). (Docket No. 32.) 

Defendants claim costs of $4,616.55 for obtaining printed and 

electronic copies of witness deposition transcripts and related 

Case 2:14-cv-02921-WBS-DB Document 38 Filed 08/09/16 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

exhibits for use in this case. (Id.) Plaintiff has not objected 

to the costs pursuant to Local Rule 292(c).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) governs the 

taxation of costs and provides that “costs--other than attorney’s 

fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 54(d)(1). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1920 enumerates which costs are 

taxable and allows for the recovery of “[f]ees for printed or 

electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use 

in the case,” id. § 1920(2), and “the costs of making copies of 

any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use 

in the case,” id. § 1920(4). “The cost of deposition copies is 

‘encompassed’ by section 1920(2), and is therefore properly 

taxed” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters 

Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990). “[28 U.S.C.]

section 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, 588 (9th Cir. 

1990).

Given that defendants are the prevailing parties in 

this case, the court has discretion to allow for their “recovery 

of deposition costs and copying costs.” See Sea Coast Foods, 

Inc. v. Lu-Mar Lobster & Shrimp, Inc., 260 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th 

Cir. 2001); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 292(f). “Rule 54(d) creates 

a presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties, 

and it is incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the 

costs should not be awarded.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 

Case 2:14-cv-02921-WBS-DB Document 38 Filed 08/09/16 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

F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). After reviewing defendants’ 

Bill of Costs and in light of the fact that plaintiff has not 

objected, the court finds that defendants’ claimed costs of 

$4,616.55 are reasonable here. 

Accordingly, costs of $4,616.55 will be taxed to 

plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-02921-WBS-DB Document 38 Filed 08/09/16 Page 3 of 3