Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00166/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00166-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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----

JAIME HUGHES, MARY CORONADO, 

AUDREY MILLS, VIRGINIA

CARDOZA, KAREN DELUCCHI,

JOLENE GIBSON, BARBARA

HEDRICK, SUZANNE HENNING, WILL

JOHNSON, LINDA MAGER, MARIA

MACIAS, CARL MORROW, CANDICE

PRICE, VIRGINIA RUIZ, CARMEN

SIMMONS, TREASA TREDWELL,

MARINA TORRES, SHEILA WALL,

LORIE WEISS and KATHI LYNN

CORONADO,

NO. CIV. S 03-0166 MCE DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF STOCKTON and DOES 1

through 100, in their

individual capacities,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Case 2:03-cv-00166-MCE -DAD Document 304 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 7
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

The City’s initial Bill of Costs was filed on July 18, 1

2005. That costs bill was superseded by an Amended Bill of Costs

filed on July 20, 2005. 

2

Defendant City of Stockton (“City”) has submitted a Bill of

Costs in the above-referenced matter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1

1920, following a jury verdict in favor of the City reached on

July 8, 2005. While Plaintiffs do not dispute the City’s

entitlement to costs as the prevailing party in this litigation,

they do take issue with certain categories of costs claimed by

the City, arguing that those items are unreasonable and/or

unnecessary and should consequently not be allowed. The Court

has now reviewed the City’s Bill of Costs, along with the

documentation submitted in support thereof, and has further

reviewed Plaintiff’s objections. Costs are awarded to the City

as set forth below.

STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the prevailing

party in a lawsuit may recover its costs “unless the court

otherwise directs”. As this language suggests, the ultimate

decision on whether to award costs is a matter within the court’s

discretion. Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State

of Calif., 231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9 Cir. 2000). If the Court th

declines to award costs as requested by the prevailing party,

however, it should specify its reasons for doing so. Berkla v.

Case 2:03-cv-00166-MCE -DAD Document 304 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 7
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

Corel Corp., 302 F.3d 909. 921 (9 Cir. 2002). Claims for cost th

items not properly documented will generally not be allowed. 

English v. Colorado Dept. Of Corrections, 248 F.3d 1002, 1013

(10 Cir. 2001). th

ANALYSIS

Turning to the specific items of costs claimed by the City,

Plaintiffs first take issue with the costs incurred by the City

in obtaining the transcripts of depositions taken in this case. 

According to Plaintiffs, it was not necessary for the City to

have deposed all twenty Plaintiffs in this action. Plaintiffs

therefore contend that the transcript costs for those depositions

are unreasonable. Plaintiffs further argue that costs associated

with the provision of ASCII disks, as well as rough edit disks,

should not be allowed. Plaintiffs’ objections in this regard

lack merit. The depositions obtained were reasonable under the

circumstances of this case, and the costs incurred are

appropriate. Court reporter/transcript costs for the depositions

will be awarded as requested in the amount of $11,816.30.

The next major item of claimed costs pertains to witness

expenses, both with respect to the service of subpoenas for

witness attendance at trial and per diem fees and other expense

payable for such attendance. The arguments advanced by

Plaintiffs in contesting those expenses are also without merit. 

First, although Plaintiffs correctly point out that witness fees

and expenses cannot be claimed by prevailing parties themselves

for appearing at trial, the authority advanced by Plaintiffs does

Case 2:03-cv-00166-MCE -DAD Document 304 Filed 11/03/05 Page 3 of 7
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

Another argument advanced by Plaintiffs is that certain of 2

the subpoena fees were in excess of the amount that would have

been charged for service by the United States Marshall (at

$125.64, including mileage and driving time to Stockton) and

should be disallowed on that basis. Examination of the service

fees in question, however, for subpoenaing Plaintiffs Audrey

Mills and Suzanne Henning) show that advanced witness fees in the

amount of $63.52 for included in both invoices (for $179.87

each). Since the witness fees themselves are separately

recoverable, the net amount of the invoices in question for

subpoening Ms. Mills and Ms. Henning is less than the $125.64

figure in any event. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ objection to

those costs is ill-taken.

4

not pertain to such fees/expenses payable to an adverse party for

testifying at the prevailing party’s behest. In Evanow v. M/V

Neptune, 163 F.3d 1108 (9 Cir. 1998), for example, the witness th

fees claimed were for expenses by various prevailing parties. In

the present case, on the other hand, the expenses relate to the

City’s need to subpoena several of the plaintiffs as adverse

parties. Second, the fact that some of the witnesses subpoenaed

were not ultimately called to testify at trial does not mean that

the expenses so incurred were unnecessary. Such witnesses are

entitled to compensation for their readiness to testify, and

costs are recoverable on that basis. See Haroco, Inc. v.

American National Bank and Trust Co. Of Chicago, 38 F.3d 1429,

1442 (7 Cir. 1994). th

Although Plaintiffs’ substantive arguments against the award

of witness fees/costs in this matter are unavailing, certain of 2

the costs claimed have nonetheless not been substantiated through

any documentation provided by the City and will consequently be

disallowed. In its itemization of witness fees on the reverse of

the Amended Bill for Costs, for example, witness fees are sought

for Wally Storm and for George Bist, although no documentation of

Case 2:03-cv-00166-MCE -DAD Document 304 Filed 11/03/05 Page 4 of 7
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

The City’s Amended Memorandum of Costs (as opposed to the 3

Amended Bill of Costs), however, does not include witness fees

for Storm or Bist so they may have been inadvertently included in

the costs bill itself. 

5

such expense was provided. In addition, the documentation 3

provided appears to be at odds with the apportionment between

subpoena fees and witness fees and costs reflected in the Amended

Bill of Costs itself. The amounts documented are for $940.20 for

service of subpoenas and $633.35 for witness expenses. Those

amounts are awarded.

The final, and most significant, area of disagreement

pertaining to awardable costs pertains to fees for

exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use

in this case. While such fees are unquestionably proper under 28

U.S.C. § 1920(4), Plaintiffs argue for a narrow reading of that

section, claiming that costs incurred for tabs, binders, and

exhibit blow-ups cannot be incorporated within “exemplification

and copies of papers.” The Ninth Circuit, however, in Maxwell v.

Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, Hamburg, 862 F.2d 767, 770 (9th

Cir. 2003), has adopted a broad construction of the term

“exemplification” that includes all types of demonstrative

evidence, including photographs and graphic aids, that are

necessarily obtained for use in the case.

In this case, the Court required that tabs and binders be

provided in organizing the extensive proposed exhibits in this

case. As such, those costs are recoverable. In addition, fees

incurred in preparing the exhibits for trial, such as re-binds

and numbering devices, are also proper.

Although the Ninth Circuit’s Maxwell decision indicates that

Case 2:03-cv-00166-MCE -DAD Document 304 Filed 11/03/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

photographic blow-ups and graphic aids are at least potentially

recoverable, Plaintiffs argue that extensive blow-ups were

unnecessary in this case due to courtroom equipment and

technology permitting the projection of large-scale images

without physically amplifying the size of the original materials. 

In addition, Plaintiffs contend that the City used only three

actual blow-ups in any event, and then only during closing

argument.

These arguments are well taken. Given the courtroom

configuration, it was not reasonably necessary to incur expense

in the amount of $3,407.50 for some 28 exhibit enlargements to

poster size. Moreover, and as stated above, those exhibits were

largely unused in any event. The expenses incurred for preparing

those blow-ups are disallowed.

In addition, the City seeks reimbursement for 41.75 hours of

“computer illustration” at $175.00 per hour. The City provides

no explanation whatsoever as to just what that entails, and

without such detail the Court cannot determine that such expenses

were reasonable and necessarily incurred in presenting the City’s

case. Even were the proper explanation provided, this Court has

grave concerns about whether hourly expenses of this magnitude

may properly be regarded as a recoverable cost under Section

1920, as opposed to fees incurred in simply preparing the case

for trial, which are akin to attorneys’ fees and would not be

allowable as costs under the statute. Consequently, the City’s

claimed costs of $7,306.25 for “computer illustration” will not

be permitted. 

//

Case 2:03-cv-00166-MCE -DAD Document 304 Filed 11/03/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, costs in this matter are taxed in

favor of the City as follows:

Fees for Service of Subpoenas $ 940.20

Court Reporter/Transcript Fees $ 11,816.30

Printing/Exemplification Costs $ 9,225.09

Witness Fees/Costs $ 633.35

____________

TOTAL: $ 22,614.94

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 2, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00166-MCE -DAD Document 304 Filed 11/03/05 Page 7 of 7