Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01271/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01271-43/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

BENJAMIN C. OYARZO and NICHOLAS 

HART,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TUOLUMNE FIRE DISTRICT, KENNETH 

HOCKETT, and TONEY POWERS,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01271-SAB

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS HART AND 

OYARZO’S MOTIONS FOR REVIEW OF 

TAXATION OF COSTS

(ECF Nos. 249, 251, 269, 270, 275, 276, 279, 

284, 285, 288, 295, 296, 298)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Following the ruling on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, this action 

proceeded to trial on Plaintiff Oyarzo’s claim that Defendant Tuolumne Fire District (“TFD”) 

failed to compensate him for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”); and Plaintiff Hart’s claims that Defendants Hockett and Powers retaliated against him 

in violation of the First Amendment, and Defendant TFD retaliated against him in violation of 

California Labor Code section 6310 and violated the Firefighters’ Procedural Bill of Rights 

(“FPBR”). 

The trial of this action began on December 3, 2013. On December 17, 2013, the jury 

returned verdicts in favor of Plaintiff Oyarzo and against Defendant TFD for failure to pay for all 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 34
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

hours worked in violation of the FLSA; for Plaintiff Hart and against Defendant Hockett for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; for Plaintiff Hart and against Defendant TFD for 

violation of the FPBR; and for Defendants Powers and TFD and against Plaintiff Hart on all

remaining claims. On January 21, 2014, costs were taxed against Defendant Hockett in the 

amount of $3,672.11. On January 27, 2014, costs were taxed against Defendant TFD in the 

amount of $2,592.94. On February 6, 2014, costs were taxed against Plaintiff Hart in the amount 

of $3,496.56 for Defendant Powers and in the amount of $3,496.56 for Defendant TFD. Plaintiff

Hart is seeking a review of the Clerk’s orders taxing costs against Defendant TFD and the order 

taxing costs in favor of Defendants Hockett and TFD; and Plaintiff Oyarzo is seeking review of 

the order taxing against Defendant TFD.

II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The procedure history of this case is set forth in the order on Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart’s 

motions for attorney fees. As relevant here, on January 2, 2014, Plaintiff Hart submitted a bill of 

costs seeking $40,568.38. (ECF No. 234.) Defendant Hockett filed objections to Plaintiff Hart’s 

bill of costs on January 9, 2014. (ECF No. 238.) On January 15, 2014, an amended judgment 

was entered for Plaintiff Hart reflecting judgments in favor of Defendants TFD and Powers and 

against Plaintiff Hart. (ECF No. 239.) 

On January 20, 2014, Plaintiff Oyarzo submitted a bill of costs seeking $16,352.21. 

(ECF No. 243.) Costs in the amount of $3,672.11 were taxed against Defendant Hockett on 

January 21, 2014. (ECF No. 244.) Defendant TFD filed objections to Plaintiff Oyarzo’s bill of 

costs on January 24, 2014. (ECF No. 245.) On January 27, 2014, taxed were costs against 

Defendant TFD in the amount of $2,592.94. (ECF No. 246.) 

Plaintiff Hart filed a motion for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs against Defendant 

Hockett on January 29, 2014. (ECF No. 249.) On this same date, Defendants Powers and TFD 

filed bills of costs against Plaintiff Hart. (ECF Nos. 247, 248.) Plaintiff Oyarzo filed a motion 

for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs against Defendant TFD on February 3, 2014. (ECF 

No. 251.) Plaintiffs filed notices of errata on February 3 and 5, 2014. (ECF Nos. 252, 259.) On 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 2 of 34
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

February 5, 2014, Plaintiff Hart filed objections to the bill of costs submitted by Defendants 

Powers and TFD. (ECF No. 262.) On February 6, 2014, costs of $3,496.56 were taxed against 

Plaintiff Hart for Defendant TFD and costs of $3,496.56 were taxed for Defendant Powers and 

against Plaintiff Hart. (ECF Nos. 266, 267.) On February 12, 2014, Defendants Hockett and 

TFD filed an opposition to Plaintiffs Hart and Oyarzo’s motion for review of taxation of costs. 

(ECF Nos. 269, 270.) 

On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff Hart filed motions for review of the Clerk’s taxation of 

costs in favor of Defendants TFD and Powers. (ECF Nos. 276, 277.) Plaintiff Hart filed a reply 

on February 19, 2014. (ECF No. 279.) On February 25, 2014, Plaintiff Hart filed a notice of 

errata clarifying the amount of costs sought in this action. (ECF No. 284.) On February 26, 

2014, Plaintiff Oyarzo filed a reply. (ECF No. 285.)

On March 4, 2014, Plaintiff Hart filed a bill of costs against Defendant TFD. (ECF No. 

287.) On March 5, 2014, Defendant TFD filed an opposition to the motion for review of the 

clerk’s taxation of costs. (ECF No. 288.) On March 7, 2014, a telephonic conference was held 

in which the parties stipulated to amend Plaintiff Hart’s original bill of costs against Defendant 

Hockett and all subsequent related pleadings to include Defendant TFD. The parties were 

granted the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing based upon the stipulation. (ECF No. 

291.) On March 12, 2014, Plaintiff Hart filed a reply to Defendant TFD’s opposition to his 

motion for review of the clerk’s order taxing costs. (ECF No. 295.) On March 13, 2014, 

Plaintiff Hart filed the supplemental briefing on the bill of costs sought against Defendant TFD. 

(ECF No. 296.) Defendant Hockett filed reply on March 20, 2014. (ECF No. 298.)

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “unless . . . a court order provides 

otherwise, costs -- other than attorney’s fees --should be allowed to the prevailing party.” The 

Local Rules of the Eastern District of California state that “[c]osts shall be taxed in conformity 

with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1920.” L.R. 292(a); see also Grove v. Wells Fargo Financial 

California, Inc., 606 F.3d 557, 579 (9th Cir. 2010) (the full extent of the court’s power to shift 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 3 of 34
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

litigation costs is defined by section 1920, absent express statutory authority). Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1920 the Court may tax costs for:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; 

(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for 

use in the case; 

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; 

(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials 

where the copies are 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. 

“By its terms, the rule creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing 

party, but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Association of MexicanAmerican Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000); see also In re Paoli 

R.R. Yard PCB Litigation (In re Paoli), 221 F.3d 449, 458 (3d Cir. 2000) (the phrase “ ‘unless 

the court otherwise directs’ makes the allowance of costs discretionary”). To overcome this 

presumption and deny a party costs, the district court must provide an explanation and the losing 

party bears the burden of demonstrating that an award of costs would be unequitable under the 

circumstances. In re Paoli, 221 F.3d at 462-63; Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 

945 (9th Cir. 2003) (“losing party must show why costs should not be awarded”). The district 

court may apportion costs between the winning and losing parties, including apportioning costs 

between multiple plaintiffs or defendants on the same side. In re Paoli, 221 F.3d at 469. 

IV.

DISCUSSION

A. Neither Plaintiff Hart Nor Defendant TFD are Prevailing Parties Entitled to 

Costs

Plaintiff Hart seeks costs of $16,212.82 against Defendant TFD for costs incurred in 

prosecuting his FPBR claim on which the jury returned a verdict in his favor. Defendant TFD 

has been awarded costs of $3,496.56 against Plaintiff Hart; and Plaintiff Hart seeks to vacate the 

award of costs. 

In the motion to vacate the award of costs for Defendant TFD, Plaintiff Hart argues that 

Defendant TFD is not a prevailing party because the jury did not return a verdict in Defendant 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 4 of 34
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

TFD’s favor on the FPBR claim. (Mot. to Review Clerk’s Taxation of Costs in Favor of 

Defendant TFD 3, ECF No. 275.) Defendant TFD counters that, although the jury found in favor 

of Plaintiff Hart on the FPBR claim, he received no relief and the finding without more is 

insufficient to confer prevailing party status upon Plaintiff Hart. (Def. TFD’s Opp. to Pl. Hart’s 

Mot. to Review Clerk’s Taxation of Costs 2, ECF No. 288.) Plaintiff Hart argues that he is a 

prevailing party because he had improperly placed documents removed from his personnel file. 

(Pl. Hart’s Reply to Def. TFD’s Opp. 2-3, ECF No. 295.) 

“The Supreme Court has held that, for the purpose of federal fee-shifting statutes, a party 

is a “prevailing party” if (1) it secures a material alteration in the legal relationship of the parties 

and (2) that alteration is judicially sanctioned.” Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1186-87 (9th 

Cir. 2007). A party must receive some type of relief on the merits from a court to be considered 

a prevailing party. Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health and 

Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 603 (2001); Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 759 (1987). 

While Plaintiff Hart argues that he has obtained some relief entitling him to prevailing 

party status, the Court has addressed this issue in regards to the nominal damages. (See Order 

Denying Pl. Hart’s Mot. for Attorney Fees III.B.1.b.) The Court finds this argument 

unpersuasive in regards to the FPBR claim for several reasons. First, Plaintiff did not have 

standing to receive injunctive relief for violation of the FPBR. (Order re Damages 4-5, ECF No. 

236.) Further, to the extent that Plaintiff Hart had requested such relief, Defendants voluntarily 

granted the relief without any intervention by the Court. (Order on Stip. Re Withdrawal of Pl. 

Hart’s Request for Court Order 232, ECF No. 231.)

 In Poland, the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue where the plaintiff obtained a favorable 

judgment but no damages or other form of relief. 494 F.3d at 1187. The appellate court found 

that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party and vacated the order granting attorney fees and 

costs. Id. Similarly here, Plaintiff Hart has not obtained any damages or other form of relief on 

the FPBR claim. In these circumstances, the Court finds that neither Plaintiff Hart nor 

Defendant TFD are entitled to prevailing party status and both parties’ request for costs are 

denied. According, the order taxing costs to Plaintiff Hart shall be vacated (ECF No. 266), and 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 5 of 34
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

Plaintiff Hart’s bill of costs against Defendant TFD is denied. 

B. Plaintiff Hart’s Motion for Review of Clerk’s Taxation of Costs in Favor of 

Defendant Powers

On February 6, 2014, in response to a bill of costs submitted by Defendant Powers, the 

Clerk taxed costs of $3,496.56 against Plaintiff Hart. (ECF No. 267.) Plaintiff Hart objects to 

the costs of $150.00 for the deposition attendance fee of James Maltese. (ECF No. 276.) 

Plaintiff Hart contends that the $150.00 attendance fee was improper because it was 

Plaintiff who noticed the deposition. In the bill of costs, Defendant Powers sought $12.50 in 

costs. Plaintiff Hart requests that the bill of costs be reduced to $3,484.06. Defendant Powers 

did not file an opposition to the motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff Hart’s motion for review of the 

Clerk’s taxation of costs is granted. The bill of cost filed on February 6, 2014, is amended to tax 

costs of $3,484.06 against Plaintiff Hart.

C. Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart’s Motions for Review of Clerk’s Taxation of 

Costs Against Defendants Hockett and TFD

Plaintiff Hart has submitted a motion for review of the taxation of costs seeking 

$18,993.651against Defendant Hockett and $16,212.82 against Defendant TFD.2(Pl. Nicholas 

Hart’s Suppl. Briefing Re Costs 4,

3

ECF No. 296.) Plaintiff Oyarzo’s motion seeks costs in the 

amount of $15,806.36; or if the Court finds that costs should be shared equally, in the amount of 

$27,988.59.4 (Pl. Benjamin Oyarzo’s Motion to Review Taxation of Costs 3, ECF No. 251.) 

Defendants oppose the request for costs arguing that Plaintiffs are attempting to seek costs that 

are unrelated to the claims upon which they succeeded at trial or that were incurred in 

prosecuting the action by the losing plaintiff. (Def. Hockett’s Opp. to Pl. Hart’s Mot. to Review 

Clerk’s Taxation of Costs 2, ECF No. 270; Def. TFD’s Opp. to Pl. Oyarzo’s Mot. to Review 

Clerk’s Taxation of Costs 4, ECF No. 269.) 

In determining the costs to be awarded, the Court is to exercise its discretion and only 

 

1

Plaintiff Hart was originally seeking costs of $40,170.83. (ECF No. 249.) This amount was amended in the notice 

of errata filed February 25, 2014. (ECF No. 284.) 

2 As discussed supra at IV.A, Plaintiff Hart’s motion is denied as it pertains to Defendant TFD.

3 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

4

In his reply, Defendant Oyarzo reduces this amount by $805.48. (ECF No. 285 at 6.)

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 6 of 34
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

allow taxation of costs for materials that were “necessarily obtained for use in the case” and for 

an amount that is reasonable. Berryman v. Hofbauer, 161 F.R.D. 341, 344 (E.D. Mich. 1995). 

The proper inquiry is whether the costs were reasonable at the time that they were incurred. 

Jackson v. City of Pittsburg, No. C 09-01-16 WHA, 2013 WL 3187326, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 

21, 2013). 

In this action, Defendants contend that costs should be apportioned between the six 

defendants and the two plaintiffs, arguing that it would be unequitable to award costs against 

Defendant Hockett where his liability is limited to specific acts that occurred from August 

through December of 2010. (ECF No. 270 at 3-5; 9-10, 11-12, 13-14.) Plaintiffs argue that 

pursuant to Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), this lawsuit cannot be viewed as a series 

of discrete claims, and costs should be awarded as if only Defendant Hockett were proceeding on 

his First Amendment claim. (ECF No. 279 at 3.) 

The Court declines to adopt the position of either party. This action is distinguishable 

from Hensley as that action involved a single count claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 461 U.S. at 

427. The Court does agree that the costs should be apportioned by determining if they were 

necessarily incurred in prosecuting Plaintiff Hart’s First Amendment claim against Defendant 

Hockett (ECF No. 279 at 2), or in prosecuting Plaintiff Oyarzo’s FLSA claim against Defendant 

TFD. However, in apportioning costs, the Court also considers that Plaintiffs did not prevail 

against the remaining four defendants and on the majority of the claims brought in this action.

In this action, Plaintiffs brought thirteen claims against six defendants alleging multiple 

constitutional, statutory and state law violations that were based upon discrete facts. At the time 

that the majority of the costs were incurred, this action was proceeding on Plaintiffs Oyarzo and 

Hart’s claims against all defendants on all claims alleged in the amended complaint.

5

 

 

5 The amended complaint in this action was brought by 1) Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart against Defendant TFD for 

violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2) Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart against Defendants TFD, Turner, Hockett, 

Machado, Hutchins, and Powers for unlawful deterrence in violation of the First Amendment; 3) Plaintiff Oyarzo 

against Defendants TFD, Turner, Hockett, Machado, Hutchins, and Powers for retaliation in violation of the First 

Amendment; 4) Plaintiff Hart against Defendants TFD, Turner, Hockett, Machado, Hutchins, and Powers for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 5) Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart for denial of due process in violation 

of the Fourteenth Amendment; 6) Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart against Defendant TFD for violation of their civil 

rights; 7) Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart against Defendant TFD for retaliation for reporting safety violations in 

violation of California Labor Code section 6310; 8) Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart against Defendant TFD for 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 7 of 34
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

8

In addressing an award of attorney fees, the Ninth Circuit has stated that a plaintiff is not 

eligible to receive fees “for time spent on unsuccessful claims that are unrelated to a plaintiff's 

successful § 1983 claim.” McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). 

These unrelated claims are to be treated as if they were raised in a separate lawsuit to realize 

“congressional intent to limit awards to prevailing parties.” McCown, 565 F.3d at 1103 (quoting 

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435). However, where a lawsuit involves related claims, a plaintiff who has 

won substantial relief should not have his attorney fees reduced because he did not prevail on all 

related claims. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 440. Claims are related where they involve a common core 

of facts or are based on related legal theories. Id. at 435. 

Where a plaintiff has had limited success on the claims brought in the action, the Ninth 

Circuit has instructed courts to follow a two-step analysis: 

First, the court asks whether the claims upon which the plaintiff failed to prevail 

were related to the plaintiff's successful claims. If unrelated, the final fee award 

may not include time expended on the unsuccessful claims. If the unsuccessful 

and successful claims are related, then the court must apply the second part of the 

analysis, in which the court evaluates the “significance of the overall relief 

obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the 

litigation.” If the plaintiff obtained “excellent results,” full compensation may be 

appropriate, but if only “partial or limited success” was obtained, full 

compensation may be excessive. Such decisions are within the district court's 

discretion.

Schwarz v. Secretary of Health Human Services, 73 F.3d 895, 901-902 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations 

omitted). In Schwarz the Ninth Circuit explained that in determining whether claims are related 

“the focus is to be on whether the unsuccessful and successful claims arose out of the same 

‘course of conduct.’ If they didn’t they are unrelated under Hensley.” Id. at 903. 

The allegations in the amended complaint do not involve a common core of facts but 

involve multiple incidents that occur from March 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. Plaintiffs

 

retaliation for disclosing statutory violations in violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5; 9) Plaintiffs 

Oyarzo and Hart against Defendant TFD for violations of the FPBR; 10) Plaintiff Oyarzo against Defendant TFD for 

age discrimination in violation of California Government Code section 12940, et seq.; 11) Plaintiff Oyarzo against 

Defendant TFD for marital status discrimination; 12) Plaintiff Hart against Defendant TFD for retaliation due to his 

association with Plaintiff Oyarzo in violation of Government Code section 12940, et seq.; and 13) Plaintiff Oyarzo 

against Defendants Turner and Hutchins for harassment and Plaintiff Hart against Defendants Hockett and Powers 

for harassment in violation of California Government Code section 12940, et seq. (ECF No. 25.)

Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart’s claims against Defendant Machado were dismissed on April 19, 2013. (ECF 

No. 64.) Plaintiff Hart’s FLSA claim against Defendant TFD was dismissed on May 3, 2013. (ECF No. 74.) 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 8 of 34
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

9

Oyarzo and Hart complained that they were not paid overtime from March 1, 2009 through June

8, 2010. Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart’s FLSA claims terminate in June 2010, two months prior to 

Defendant Hockett being seated on the TFD Board. 

Similarly, Plaintiff Oyarzo complains that he began to suffer retaliation in the spring of 

2010. Plaintiff Hart alleges that he began to suffer retaliation in June 2010 when Defendant 

Powers began working on his shift and took over duties previously assigned to Plaintiff Hart. 

This activity also occurs months prior to Defendant Hockett’s involvement with TFD. Plaintiff 

Hart’s retaliation claims against Defendant Hockett are based upon investigations that he alleged 

were retaliatory. Work on the FLSA claims cannot be deemed to have been expended on behalf 

of Plaintiff Hart’s claim against Defendant Hockett. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435. 

Also, while Plaintiff Hart prevailed on his FPBR claim against Defendant TFD, the acts 

that were found to violate the FPBR were the same acts for which the jury found liability against 

Defendant Hockett. Plaintiff Hart only prevailed on those claims associated with the acts of

Defendant Hockett and no other individual defendant in this action.

As relevant to Defendant Hockett, he was not elected and seated on the TFD Board of 

Directors until the middle of August 2010. By this time, Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart allege that 

they had been subjected to retaliation for months by TFD employees and directors of the TFD 

Board. A significant portion of the events alleged in this action cannot be attributed to 

Defendant Hockett as he had no association with TFD at the time that they occurred. Also, given 

Defendant Hockett’s position on the Board of Directors, he has been found to be entitled to 

absolute immunity for his actions taken as a board member in the reorganization of TFD. (ECF 

No. 25 at 13-23.) Finally, the discovery in this action also proceeded on Plaintiff Hart’s FLSA 

claims against Defendant TFD and these costs are not taxable to Defendants Hockett or TFD by 

this motion.

The Court finds that, given the multiple claims that were proceeding in this action, the 

limited amount of time that Defendant Hockett was involved with TFD, and his entitlement to 

absolute immunity for his functions as a board member, awarding Plaintiff Hart costs against 

Defendant Hockett for costs incurred in prosecuting the claims that were proceeding against 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 9 of 34
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

10

other defendants who ultimately prevailed in this action would be unequitable under the 

circumstances.6 

Similarly, Plaintiff Oyarzo’s only remaining claim at trial was for failure to pay wages 

for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA. Awarding Plaintiff Oyarzo the costs associated 

with those claims on which he did not prevail against the other defendants in this action, which 

are in no way related to the FLSA claims, would be inequitable to Defendant TFD. 

Since neither party has completely prevailed in this action, the Court has broad discretion 

in apportioning costs. Gorelangton v. City of Reno, 638 F.Supp. 1426, 1432 (D. Nev. 1986). 

This action involved thirteen causes of action brought by both Plaintiff Oyarzo and Hart against 

the six defendants. The Court views the amended complaint as generally alleging two separate 

claims: 1) the FLSA claims; and 2) the claims from spring of 2010 through December 2010

(hereafter “retaliation claims”). 

The first cause of action, which is the only claim upon which Plaintiff Oyarzo prevailed,

was the FLSA claim. As previously discussed, this claim is unrelated to the other claims that 

were proceeding in this action. Further, because both Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart were pursing 

FLSA claims against Defendant TFD, Plaintiff Oyarzo did not solely incur the costs of 

prosecuting these claims and Plaintiff Hart may not seek his portion of these costs on the basis of 

those claims on which he prevailed at trial. Additionally, many of the costs that Plaintiff Oyarzo 

is seeking in this action do not relate solely to his pursuit of the FLSA claim, but sought 

discovery on his and Plaintiff Hart’s claims on which Defendants prevailed at summary 

judgment. 

As discussed in the order on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees, in this action, the 

retaliation claims comprised the majority of the costs which accrued. The Court shall apportion 

thirty percent of the costs of this action for the prosecution of the FLSA claims and this amount 

shall be apportioned equally between Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart. (See Order Granting in Part Pl. 

Oyarzo’s Motion for Attorney Fees 9-12.) Accordingly, for those costs which it is determined 

 

6

In a prior award of costs in this action, District Judge O’Neill apportioned the costs of depositions between the six 

defendants to this action and awarded Defendants Hutchins and Turner costs. Oyarzo v. Tuolumne Fire Dist., 2013 

WL 5718877, (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2013). 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 10 of 34
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

11

were incurred in prosecuting all claims, Plaintiff Oyarzo’s costs associated with his FLSA claim 

shall be awarded at fifteen percent. 

The remaining seventy percent of the costs were incurred in prosecuting Plaintiffs Oyarzo 

and Hart’s remaining claims. These costs shall be apportioned between the defendants in this 

action. Accordingly for those costs are determined to be incurred in prosecuting all claims, the 

Court shall award Plaintiff Hart twelve percent of the costs.7

In reviewing the requests for costs, the Court shall consider which claims were 

proceeding at the time that the costs were incurred and if the costs were necessarily obtained in 

prosecuting the claim upon which the plaintiff prevailed at trial. Unless otherwise specified, the 

Court finds that it is appropriate to apportion all costs that can be attributed to the claim on which 

Plaintiffs Oyarzo or Hart prevailed as discussed herein.

D. Fees of the Clerk

Plaintiffs Hart and Oyarzo each seek $350.00 for the filing fee in this action. Plaintiff 

Hart initially filed a suit that was consolidated with the instant case, and a filing fee was paid in 

each action. Accordingly, each plaintiff is entitled to the filing fee of $350.00 which is taxable 

under 28 U.S.C. §1920(1). 

However, at the time that each action was filed the suits were proceeding against five 

separate defendants. Plaintiff Oyarzo’s complaint in this action was against Defendants TFD, 

Turner, Hutchins, Hockett, and Machado. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff Hart’s complaint in case No. 

1:11-cv-01272-LJO-DLB was against Defendants TFD, Turner, Powers, Hockett, and Machado. 

(ECF No. 1.) 

Therefore, the filing fees in each case shall be apportioned between the five defendants. 

Plaintiff Hart is awarded $70.00 and Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded $70.00 for filing fees. 

 

7

In awarding twelve percent (70% divided by 6 Defendants), the Court considers that, although the jury found for 

Plaintiff Hart and against Defendant TFD on his FPBR claim, he is not entitled to any award of damages for the 

violation and cannot receive injunctive relief since he no longer is employed by TFD. Accordingly, the Court finds 

that considering the number of claims upon which Defendant TFD prevailed both at summary judgment and trial, 

and that the costs associated with this claim are the same as those associated with the retaliation claim against 

Defendant Hockett, twelve percent is a reasonable percentage of costs to award based upon Plaintiff Hart’s limited 

success in this action.

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 11 of 34
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

12

E. Fees for Printed or Electronically Recorded Transcripts

Plaintiff Hart is seeking $13,593.58 in fees for printed or recorded transcripts. (ECF No. 

284 at 2.) Plaintiff Oyarzo is seeking $10,360.09 in fees for printed or recorded transcripts. 

(ECF No. 251 at 9.) Initially, Plaintiff Hart was seeking costs for forty-two depositions. By his 

reply, Plaintiff Hart is now seeking costs for twenty depositions and Plaintiff Oyarzo is seeking 

costs for seventeen depositions. 

Section 1920(2) permits taxation for the costs of reproducing printed or electronically 

recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for the case. To decide the appropriateness of Plaintiffs 

Hart and Oyarzo’s requests, the Court must determine if the depositions were necessarily 

obtained for the case. Under Ninth Circuit precedent it is clear that a document need not be 

offered as evidence to have been necessarily obtained for the case. In re Ricoh, 661 F.3d at 

1369. However, depositions that are purely investigative or merely for the convenience of 

counsel may not be taxed against the opposing party. Michaels v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 3:10-cv01051-AC, 2013 WL 5206347, at *3 (Sept. 13, 2013). In other words, to be taxable depositions 

must not merely be for discovery. Arboireau v. Adidas Salomon AG, 2002 WL 31466564, at *5 

(D. Or. June 14, 2002). 

1. Defendants’ Objections

a. Objections to Costs

Defendants object that Plaintiffs are seeking costs that are not enumerated in the statute 

such as the reporter’s attendance fees, shipping fees, service or late fees, and mileage or travel 

fees. Some courts find that fees for the delivery costs of deposition transcripts are not mentioned 

in § 1920 and are routinely excluded as taxable costs. Frederick v. City of Portland, 162 F.R.D. 

139, 146 (D. Or. 1995); see Blanton v. County of Sacramento, No. 2:09-cv-01832-MCE-CKD, 

2013 WL 3283216, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2013); Davila v. County of San Joaquin, No. 2:06-

cv-02691-LKK-EFB, No. 2012 WL 1669640, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2012). Other courts tax 

the shipping and handling costs finding “they are associated with court reporters’ fees and were 

necessarily incurred in order to obtain the transcripts.” Jones v. County of Sacramento, No. CIV 

S-09-1025 DAD, 2011 WL 3584330, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011) (quoting Nielsen v. 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 12 of 34
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

13

Trofholz Technologies, Inc., No. CIV. 2:09–960 WBS KJN, 2010 WL 5136164 at *2 (E.D.Cal. 

Dec.9, 2010)). This Court agrees that the costs for shipping and handling, as well as attendance 

and mileage fees, are associated with the court reporter’s fees and are therefore necessarily 

incurred to obtain the transcripts. These items will be allowed as taxable costs. 

Defendants also object to the costs for an additional copy of the transcripts. Neither 

section 1920(2) nor the Local Rule address the number of copies that may be included in a bill of 

costs. However, several cases in the Eastern District have addressed this issue and found that 

courts may not tax the costs of transcripts that are merely provided for the convenience of the 

attorneys. Thein v. Feather River Community College, 2013 WL 4012637, at *3 (E.D. Cal Aug. 

6, 2013) (allowing costs for only original where party did not show that copy was necessarily 

obtained for use in action); McKesson Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Med., Inc., No. civ. S-02-

2669 FCD KJM, 2007 WL 1139557, at *1 (E.D. Cal. April 17, 2007) (cost of deposition 

transcript were divided in half where two copies were provided); Cargill Inc. v. Progressive 

Dairy Solutions, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-0349-LJO-SMS, 2008 WL 5135826, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 

2008) (allowing for two copies of deposition transcript where one was complimentary). 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs would be entitled to an original and one copy of the 

deposition transcript. Plaintiff Hart has included a declaration from California Reporters stating 

that there is no additional charge for the copy of the transcript that is provided in addition to the 

original transcript. (ECF No. 249-2.) Accordingly, the Court shall award the entire amount 

charged for the transcripts by Central California Reporters. However, the invoices of Central 

California Reporters also show a charge for a copy of the condensed transcript. Invoices by 

other providers also bill for a condensed transcript, CD, or both. The additional condensed 

transcript and charges for a CD of the deposition are provided for the convenience of the 

attorneys. For each deposition for which costs are allowed, the Court shall award for costs for 

the original and one copy of the transcript, additional costs for condensed transcripts or CDs 

shall not be taxed as costs. 

Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart are seeking to tax costs for video recording several of the 

depositions taken during the pendency of this action and Defendants Hockett and TFD object to 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 13 of 34
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

14

these costs. Plaintiff Oyarzo argues that his video deposition was necessarily obtained during the 

use of the trial as it was used to prepare him for trial. However, the use of a video deposition to 

prepare the plaintiff for trial would be for the convenience of counsel and not necessarily 

obtained for use at trial. 

Plaintiff Oyarzo further contends that the video deposition of Mr. Turner was necessary 

due to his “advanced age” and Ms. Hutchin’s video deposition was necessary due to her “health 

conditions” without elaborating further. (ECF No. 285 at 6.) The depositions of Mr. Turner and 

Ms. Hutchins were taken in September and October of 2012 respectively. While Plaintiff 

Oyarzo cites Mr. Turner’s “advanced age” and Ms. Hutchins “health problems,” the Court 

observed these witnesses at trial in December 2013 and their appearance did not support this 

contention that their age or physical condition was such that there was a danger of their not being 

available for the trial of this action.

These videos were not used during the trial of this action and Plaintiffs Hart and Oyarzo

have not shown that video recording the depositions was “necessarily obtained” for use in this 

trial, rather than merely for the convenience of counsel. The Court finds these expenses are not 

reasonable and the costs for video recording depositions will not be taxed.

b. Objections to Specific Depositions

Plaintiff Hart is seeking costs for his deposition and the depositions of Plaintiff Oyarzo, 

Deborah Russell-Bautista, Stephenie Burns, Ben Orr, Charles Mahla, Paul Stein, Kenneth 

Hockett, Darlene Hutchins, James Manske, Colleen Murray, Mike Noonan, Nick Ohler, Jason 

Podesta, Toney Powers, Jeremy Proctor, Constantine Boubalos, Virginia Van Bolt, Marcella 

Wells, Craig Enos, and Scott Kenley.

8

 

Defendant Hockett opposes the costs of the depositions of Nicholas Ohler (PMK and 

individual), Michael Noonan, Constantine Boubalos, Virginia Van Bolt, Paul Stein, Jeremy 

Proctor, and James Manske arguing they are not relevant to the retaliation claim against 

 

8

In his reply, Plaintiff Hart has withdrawn his request for costs for the depositions of Rex Buthman, James Rafferty, 

James Maltese, Joseph Turner, Grant Miller, Brian Machado, Julie Henriques, Craig Pedro, Larry Houseburg, 

William Hutchins, Sean McKernan, David Moore, Beth DeLima, Laurence Crabtree, Justin Birtwhistle, Tim Wertz, 

and Kevin Booth. (ECF No. 279.)

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 14 of 34
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

15

Defendant Hockett. (ECF No. 270 at 9-10.) Defendant Hockett’s liability arose after he became 

a board member at TFD in August of 2010, and is limited to specific actions from August 

through December 2010. (Id. at 9-10.) 

Plaintiff Hart contends that these individuals were identified in Defendants Rule 26 

disclosures as “Individuals Likely to Have Discoverable Information” and their depositions were 

necessary to the prosecution of the claims against Defendant Hockett because they were 

identified as percipient witnesses. (ECF No. 249 at 9.) The fact that these witnesses were 

identified in Rule 26 disclosures does not make their depositions taxable against Defendant 

Hockett. Plaintiff Hart’s retaliation claims against Defendants Powers and TFD arose in June 

2010, however the claims against Defendant Hockett did not arise until sometime after he was 

seated on the board in the middle of August 2010. At this time, some of these witnesses were no 

longer associated with TFD, and therefore, would not be percipient witnesses to any actions by 

Defendant Hockett against Plaintiff Hart. 

To the extent that costs were incurred in prosecuting the retaliation claims brought by 

Plaintiff Hart, he may recover his portion of the costs. Plaintiff Hart argues that the costs 

associated with Plaintiff Oyarzo’s retaliation claims are directly relevant to his retaliation claims;

and he requests these costs be taxed against Defendant Hockett. Although Plaintiff Hart asserted 

that he was being retaliated against for speaking out against the alleged retaliation of Plaintiff 

Oyarzo, the costs associated with Plaintiff Oyarzo’s retaliation claim are not recoverable by 

Plaintiff Hart. While Plaintiff Hart contends that these costs are so interwoven as to be 

inextricable from one another, the Court finds this is not the case. Plaintiff Oyarzo has alleged 

specific incidents by specific individuals that occurred prior to Plaintiff Hart alleging any 

retaliatory acts. The costs associated with Plaintiff Oyarzo’s claims can be separated from those 

associated with Plaintiff Hart’s claims as they involve different witnesses and events. Further, 

the costs incurred in prosecuting Plaintiff Oyarzo’s retaliation claims did not contribute to 

Plaintiff Hart’s ultimate victory in the lawsuit. Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 935 F.2d 

1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 1991).

While it was clear that Plaintiff Hart was attempting to connect Defendant Hockett with 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 15 of 34
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

16

Defendant TFD and its actions against Plaintiff Oyarzo prior to his being seated on the Board, 

depositions that are purely investigative may not be taxed against the opposing party. Michaels, 

2013 WL 5206347, at *3. The cost associated with Plaintiff Oyarzo’s retaliation claims are not 

taxable to Plaintiff Hart. Arboireau, 2002 WL 31466564, at *5. 

It is the prevailing party’s burden to establish “that the expenses he seeks to have taxed as 

costs are authorized by applicable federal law, including proof of necessity and reasonableness 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.” Berryman, 161 F.R.D. at 344. Plaintiff Hart has not met his burden of 

establishing that the depositions of Nicholas Ohler (individual), Michael Noonan, Constantine 

Boubalos, Virginia Van Bolt, Paul Stein, Jeremy Proctor, and James Manske were necessarily 

obtained in this action. In re Ricoh, 661 F.3d at 1368. The Court shall not award Plaintiff Hart 

costs for these depositions.

Plaintiff Oyarzo is seeking costs for the depositions of himself, Deborah Russell-Bautista, 

Stephenie Burns, Ben Orr, Charles Mahla, Beth DeLima, Darlene Hutchins, Marcella Wells, Tim 

Wertz, Joseph Turner, Craig Enos, Lawrence Crabtree, Defendant Hockett (PMK), and Nicholas 

Ohler (PMK). Defendant TFD objects to costs for the depositions of Nicholas Ohler (PMK), 

Defendant Hockett (PMK), Deborah Russell-Bautista, Marcella Wells, Beth De Lima, and Tim 

Wertz claiming they were not necessarily obtained in prosecuting Plaintiff Oyarzo’s FLSA claim 

against Defendant TFD. 

Defendants object to the depositions of Nicholas Ohler and Kenneth Hockett who were 

deposed as the person most knowledge during this action. Plaintiff Oyarzo contends that these 

depositions included Plaintiff Oyarzo’s job duties and performance, investigations into Oyarzo, 

Tuolumne Fire District’s personnel policies and procedures, the scheduling of TFD employees, 

and the records retention policy. The issues included in these depositions related to all claims 

against all defendants to this action and to both Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart’s FLSA and 

retaliation claims. Specifically, in relation to Plaintiff Oyarzo’s FLSA claim, the issues of his 

job duties, scheduling of employees, and personnel policies and procedures would relate to the 

FLSA claim. The depositions of Nicholas Ohler and Kenneth Hockett as person most 

knowledgeable are taxable to TFD on the FLSA claim and to Plaintiff Hart’s retaliation claim

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 16 of 34
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

17

and shall be taxed accordingly.

Defendant TFD objects to Plaintiff Oyarzo’s request to award costs for the depositions of 

Marcella Wells and Tim Wertz. Plaintiff Oyarzo states that these individuals were identified in 

the Rule 26 disclosures as individuals likely to have discoverable information or knowledge of 

the actions of Plaintiffs Oyarzo or Hart or TFD Board of Director’s activities. Ms. Wells was the 

secretary for TFD and worked at the fire station during the relevant time period for all the claims 

proceeding in this action. Her deposition would be relevant to Plaintiff Oyarzo’s claims that he 

was constantly at the fire station which is the basis of his FLSA claim, as well as all other claims 

that were brought in this action. Ms. Wells’ deposition shall be taxed against Defendant TFD.

Plaintiff’s initial Rule 26 disclosure identified Mr. Wertz as having knowledge of TFD’s 

Board of Director’s activities during the relevant time period, including the decision to 

investigate Plaintiff Oyarzo and the reasons behind the decision to downsize TFD. (ECF No. 

251-1 at 65.) Plaintiff Oyarzo contends that Mr. Wertz was a board member during the time 

when his FLSA claim arose and Mr. Wertz’ deposition was taken to illustrate the Board’s 

knowledge of Plaintiff Oyarzo’s unpaid work. However, the fact that Plaintiff Oyarzo deposed 

Mr. Wertz to determine if he had knowledge that Plaintiff Oyarzo was working without 

compensation is merely investigatory in nature. Mr. Wertz was not called at trial to testify to any 

such knowledge. Plaintiff Oyarzo has not shown that the deposition of Mr. Wertz was 

necessarily obtained in the prosecution of his FLSA claim and the deposition shall not be taxed 

against Defendant TFD. 

Defendant TFD also objects to the depositions of experts Deborah Russell-Bautista and 

Beth De Lima. Plaintiff Oyarzo argues that the deposition of Ms. De Lima was taken regarding 

TFD’s policies and procedures which was directly relevant to determining whether he was owed 

overtime based upon the “96/14” or “212/28’ scenarios. (ECF No. 285 at 5.) Ms. De Lima was 

also retained to testify to the policies and procedures of TFD and the human resources standard 

for conducting a reduction in workforce which was relevant to Plaintiffs Hart and Oyarzo’s 

retaliation claims which were still proceeding at the time that she was deposed. Plaintiff Oyarzo 

is entitled to recover the portion of Ms. De Lima’s deposition costs related to his FLSA claim, as

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 17 of 34
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

18

discussed below, in the amount of $63.25.

Plaintiff Oyarzo contends that the September 25, 2012 deposition of Ms. Russell-Bautista 

was necessarily obtained as it concerned in part the payroll records of TFD. (ECF No. 285 at 5.) 

Ms. Russell-Bautista is the Tuolumne County Auditor and, as such, dealt with the TFD Board on 

the issues of the budget shortfall that was occurring within the department. In this capacity, Ms. 

Russell-Bautista’s deposition was directly relevant to Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart’s claims that 

their termination was in retaliation for their speech and the budgetary issues were pretextual. 

Plaintiff Oyarzo shall be awarded costs for the portion of Ms. Russell-Bautista’s depositions that 

were related to his FLSA claim, as discussed below, in the amount of $35.18.

2. Depositions

a. Deposition of Plaintiff Hart

Plaintiff Hart’s deposition was taken on April 24, 2012. The taxable costs of this 

deposition are $867.80. (ECF No. 234-3 at 25.) Plaintiff Hart seeks costs for his second 

deposition on December 11, 2012. The taxable costs of this deposition are $386.20. (ECF No. 

234-3 at 67.) The taxable costs of these depositions are $1,254.00. Plaintiff Hart is awarded 

costs of $150.48 for the April 24, 2012 and December 11, 2012 depositions.

Plaintiff Oyarzo does not seek costs for the deposition of Plaintiff Hart.

b. Deposition of Plaintiff Oyarzo

Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart seek the costs for Plaintiff Oyarzo’s two depositions. The 

taxable cost of the deposition of Plaintiff Oyarzo on April 25, 2012, is $917.90. (ECF No. 243-3 

at 20.) The second deposition of Plaintiff Oyarzo occurred on December 11, 2012. The taxable 

costs for this deposition are $533.15. (ECF No. 243-3 at 47.) The taxable costs of these 

depositions are $1,451.05. Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $217.66; and Plaintiff Hart is

awarded costs of $174.13 for the depositions of Plaintiff Oyarzo.

c. Deposition of Defendant Hockett

Plaintiff Hart seek costs for two depositions of Defendant Hockett. Plaintiff Oyarzo 

seeks costs for the deposition of Defendant Hockett taken as the person most knowledgeable

(PMK). 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 18 of 34
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

19

Plaintiff Hart seek costs for a deposition of Defendant Hockett on October 29, 2012. 

(ECF No. 234-3 at 45.) The taxable costs of the deposition of Defendant Hockett are $1,345.15. 

Defendant Hockett was not associated with TFD when the FLSA claims accrued, and costs shall 

not be allocated to these claims. However, both Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart were prosecuting 

claims against Defendant Hockett and these costs shall be allocated equally between the 

plaintiffs’ retaliation claims. Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $672.58 in costs for the 

deposition of Defendant Hockett on October 29, 2012. 

Defendant Hockett was deposed as the person most knowledgeable on August 30, 2013. 

The taxable costs for the August 30, 2013 deposition are $2,037.25.

9

 (ECF No. 234-3 at 33.) 

Accordingly, Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded $305.59; and Plaintiff Hart is awarded $244.47 for the 

August 30, 2013 deposition of Defendant Hockett.

d. Depositions of Co-Defendants

Plaintiff Oyarzo seeks to recover costs for the deposition of Joseph Turner on September 

10, 2012.10 (ECF No. 243-3 at 34.) The costs taxable for the deposition of Joseph Turner are 

$2,058.40. Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded $308.72 for the deposition of Joseph Turner. 

Both Plaintiffs seek to recover costs for the deposition of Darlene Hutchins on October 9, 

2012. (ECF No. 243-3 at 46.) The costs taxable for the deposition of Darlene Hutchins are 

$1,480.20. Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $222.03 and Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of

$177.62 for the deposition of Darlene Hutchins. 

Plaintiff Hart seeks to recover costs for the deposition of Defendant Powers on October 

22, 2012. (ECF No. 234-3 at 56.) Defendant Powers became the acting fire chief after Plaintiff 

Oyarzo was placed on leave. Based on this position, the Court allocates the costs of his 

depositions between all claims. The costs taxable for the deposition of Defendant Powers are 

$1,582.40. Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $189.89 for the deposition of Defendant Powers. 

 

9 The page cost for all depositions by Atkinson-Baker includes the original and one copy. The Court does not award 

costs for the cd or condensed transcript finding they are provided for the convenience of counsel. Additionally, the 

service fees on the account due to failure to pay within thirty days are not taxable costs to defendants. All costs for 

Atkinson-Baker depositions shall be awarded in this same manner.

10 As discussed supra, Plaintiff Hart’s request for costs for the deposition of Joseph Turner has been withdrawn.

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 19 of 34
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

20

e. Board Member Depositions

Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart seek costs for the depositions of Stephenie Burns and Ben 

Orr.11

Stephenie Burns was deposed on October 15 and 16, 2012. The taxable costs for the 

October 15, 2012 deposition are $600.15. (ECF No. 234-3 at 48.) The taxable costs for the 

October 16, 2012 deposition are $767.80. (ECF No. 234-3 at 47, 52.) The total taxable costs for 

these depositions are $1,367.95. Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $205.19 and Plaintiff Hart 

is awarded costs of $164.15 for the depositions of Stephenie Burns.

The taxable costs for the deposition of Mr. Orr are $924.55. (ECF No. 234-3 at 37.) 

Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $138.68 and Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $110.95 for 

the deposition of Mr. Orr.

f. Depositions of Witnesses

Plaintiff Hart seeks costs for the depositions of Colleen Murray, Jason Podesta, and 

Marcella Wells.

12 (Pl. Nicholas Hart’s Motion to Review Clerk’s Taxation of Costs 8, ECF No. 

249.) Plaintiff Oyarzo seeks costs for the depositions of Marcella Wells, and Nicholas Ohler 

(PMK).13 

The taxable costs for the deposition of Colleen Murray are $1,036.05. (ECF No. 234-3 at 

84.) The costs of Ms. Murray’s deposition shall be allocated between the retaliation claims. 

Plaintiff Hart is awarded $172.68 for the deposition of Colleen Murray.14

The taxable costs for the deposition of Jason Podesta are $713.20. (ECF No. 234-3 at 

59.) These costs shall be allocated between the retaliation claims. Plaintiff Hart is awarded 

$118.87 for the deposition of Jason Podesta. 

The taxable costs for the deposition of Marcella Wells are $1,111.75. (ECF No. 334-3 at 

 

11 As discussed supra, Plaintiff Hart’s request for costs for the deposition of Virginia Van Bolt is denied.

12 As discussed supra, Plaintiff Hart’s request for costs for the depositions of Nicholas Ohler (individual), Michael 

Noonan, Jeremy Proctor, Constantine Boubalos, and James Manske are denied.

13 As discussed supra, Plaintiff Oyarzo’s request for costs for the deposition of Tim Wertz is denied.

14 For those costs allocated only between the retaliation claims, the Court shall apportion costs between the 

defendants and Plaintiff Hart shall be awarded one sixth of the costs.

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 20 of 34
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

21

60.) Plaintiffs Oyarzo is awarded costs of $166.76 and Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $133.41

for the deposition of Marcella Wells. 

On August 17, 2012, Nicholas Ohler was deposed as the person most knowledgeable for 

Defendant TFD. The taxable costs for this deposition are $1,283.00. (ECF No. 234-3 at 29.) 

Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded $192.45; and Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $153.96 for the 

August 17, 2012 deposition of Nicholas Ohler. 

g. Depositions of Experts

Plaintiff Hart seeks cost for the depositions of Charles Mahla, Craig Enos, Scott Kenley, 

and Deborah Russell-Bautista.

15

 Plaintiff Oyarzo seeks costs for the depositions of Dr. Charles 

Mahla, September 25, 2012 deposition of Deborah Russell-Bautista, Craig Enos, Beth De Lima, 

and Lawrence Crabtree. 

Dr. Mahla’s deposition was taken on January 29, 2013. The taxable costs for Dr. 

Mahla’s deposition are $477.80. (ECF No. 234-3 at 71.) Plaintiffs Oyarzo is awarded costs of 

$71.67 and Hart is awarded costs of $57.34 for the deposition of Dr. Mahla. 

Deborah Russell-Bautista was deposed on September 25, 2012 and March 13, 2013. The 

taxable cost of Ms. Russell-Bautista’s September 25, 2012 deposition is $234.55. (ECF No. 234-

3 at 42.) Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $35.18 for the costs of the September 25, 2012 

deposition. The taxable cost of Ms. Russell-Bautista’s March 13, 2013 deposition is $509.70. 

(ECF No. 234-3 at 89.) Plaintiff Hart is seeking costs for both depositions of Ms. RussellBautista. Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $89.31 for the depositions of Ms. Russell-Bautista.

C.P.A. Craig Enos’ deposition was taken on March 14, 2013. The taxable cost of Mr. 

Enos deposition is $719.35. (ECF No. 234-3 at 78.) Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of 

$107.90 and Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $86.32 for the deposition of Mr. Enos.

Plaintiff Hart seeks costs for the deposition of Scott Kenley on March 12, 2013. The 

taxable costs for the deposition of Mr. Kenley are $701.45. Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of 

$84.17 for the deposition of Mr. Kenley. 

Plaintiff Oyarzo seeks costs for the deposition of Beth De Lima taken on February 1, 

 

15 As discussed supra, Plaintiff Hart’s request for the costs of the deposition of Paul Stein is denied.

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 21 of 34
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

22

2013. The taxable costs of Ms. De Lima’s deposition are $421.65. (ECF No. 234-3 at 73.) 

Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $63.25 for the deposition of Ms. De Lima. 

Plaintiff Oyarzo seeks costs for the deposition of Lawrence Crabtree on March 8, 2013. 

The taxable costs for Mr. Crabtree’s deposition are $1,209.50. (ECF No. 234-3 at 88.) Plaintiff 

Oyarzo is awarded costs of $181.43 for the deposition of Mr. Crabtree.

3. Award of Costs for Printed or Electronically Recorded Transcripts

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded a total of $2,216.51 in costs for the 

following depositions.

Plaintiff Oyarzo $217.66

Defendant Hockett $305.59

Joseph Turner $308.72

Darlene Hutchins $222.03

Stephenie Burns $205.19

Ben Orr $138.68

Marcella Wells $166.76

Nicholas Ohler $192.45

Dr. Mahla $71.67

Deborah Russell-Bautista $35.18

Craig Enos $107.90

Beth De Lima $63.25

Lawrence Crabtree $181.43

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Hart is awarded a total of $2,780.33 in costs for the 

following depositions.

Plaintiff Hart $150.48

Plaintiff Oyarzo $174.13

Defendant Hockett $917.05

Darlene Hutchins $177.62

Defendant Powers $189.89

Stephenie Burns $164.15

Ben Orr $110.95

Colleen Murray $172.68

Jason Podesta $118.87

Marcella Wells $133.41

Nicholas Ohler $153.96

Dr. Mahla $57.34

Deborah Russell-Bautista $89.31

Craig Enos $86.32

Scott Kenley $84.17

4. Recording of Trial

Plaintiffs Hart and Oyarzo each seek to recover the fee of $330.00 for an audio recording 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 22 of 34
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

23

of the trial of this matter. The recording of the trial shall be apportioned between the three 

defendants to this action. Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart are each awarded $110.00 for the recording 

of the trial.

F. Fees and Disbursements for Printing 

Plaintiff Hart is seeking $1,194.00 in printing costs in this action. (ECF No. 284 at 2.) 

Plaintiff Oyarzo is seeking $1,237.55 in printing costs in this action. (ECF No. 251 at 9.) 

Defendants object that the plaintiffs have 1) failed to include any receipts or explanation for the 

costs incurred; 2) plaintiffs simply listed the entirety of the courts records document by 

document; 3) and that plaintiffs are attempting to recover costs for printing their own briefs 

which is not recoverable as there is no rule requiring that briefs be printed. (ECF No. 269 at 11; 

ECF No. 270 at 12.) 

Pursuant to section 1920, the “costs of making copies of any materials” are recoverable 

“where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). “This does 

not require, however, that the copies actually be used in the case or made part of the record.” In 

re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litigation (In re Ricoh), 661 F.3d 1361, 1367 (2011). Under section 

1920(4), which provides for costs of reproducing disclosure and formal discovery documents, the 

prevailing party can recover costs incurred in the reproduction and exemplification of a single 

copy of the original documents where that copy is supplied to the opposing party. In re Ricoh, 

661 F.3d at 1367. It is the prevailing parties burden to establish and support the amount which it

is seeking and the list of costs and expenses must be adequately detailed, identifying the purpose 

of the expenditure and not “filled with generic references such as ‘transcripts,’ ‘publication,’ and 

‘document production.’ ” In re Ricoh, 661 F.3d at 1368 (quoting Fabi Constr. Co. v Sec’y of 

Labor, 541 F.3d 407, 414 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). 

Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart have each provided a list of documents and each document is 

charged at $.10 per page and apportioned between the plaintiffs. Reviewing the list of printed 

documents, Plaintiffs are seeking costs to print copies of minute orders, receipts, orders, and 

other court documents that are not necessarily obtained for use in the case, but are expenses that 

are incurred for the attorney’s convenience. Further, while Plaintiffs state that they have 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 23 of 34
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

24

eliminated documents that are not chargeable to the losing defendant, it is clear to the Court from 

reviewing the list that this is not the case. 

Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart have not met their burden to show that the printing costs they 

are seeking are taxable to the defendants from whom they are seeking costs. Therefore,

Plaintiffs have failed to show that the costs were necessarily obtained for use in this action. The 

Court finds that the itemized spreadsheet is insufficient to permit the taxation of these costs. 

G. Fees for Service

Plaintiff Hart is seeking $672.96 for service of the summonses and subpoenas and

$1,201.28 in witness fees. (ECF No. 284 at 2.) While Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart state that they 

have reduced the amount that they are requesting for the fees for service in this action, the Court 

is unable to determine which fees are no longer being requested. Accordingly, the Court shall 

address the fees that were initially requested on the bill of costs. (ECF Nos. 234-3, 243-3.) 

1. Fees for Service of Summons and Subpoenas

Plaintiffs Hart and Oyarzo each seek $40.00 in fees for service of summonses and 

subpoenas on the defendants they prevailed against at trial. (ECF Nos. 249 at 7; 251 at 11.) At 

the time that these subpoenas were served, there were still two separate actions proceeding and 

each plaintiff is entitled to recover for service on the defendant. Plaintiff Hart is awarded $40.00 

for service on Defendant Hockett; and Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded $40.00 for service on 

Defendant TFD. 

Defendants argue and the Court agrees that the expenses for serving the other defendants 

in this action should not be taxed against Defendants Hockett and TFD. Hynix Semiconductor 

Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 697 F.Supp.2d 1139, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The Court denies the request 

to tax Defendants Hockett and TFD for costs of serving the summonses and complaint on the 

other defendants in this action. 

2. Service of Motion to Quash

Plaintiff Oyarzo and Hart each seek $75.00 for service of a motion to quash a subpoena 

for academic records and employment records from former employers of Plaintiff Oyarzo. (See

ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff Hart argues that this was related to Defendant Hart’s retaliation claim. 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 24 of 34
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

25

While these records may have been relevant to Plaintiff Oyarzo’s retaliation claim which was 

decided by summary judgment, these records have no relevance to Plaintiff Hart’s retaliation 

claim or Defendant Oyarzo’s FLSA claim. The motion to tax the costs of serving the motion to 

quash is denied.

3. Deposition Service Fees

Plaintiff Hart is seeking costs for service of deposition subpoenas on Nicholas Ohler, 

Marcella Wells, Jason Podesta, Jeremy Proctor, Virginia Van Bolt, Colleen Murray, Lawrence 

Houseburg, Craig Pedro, Sean McKernan, Michael Noonan, Houseburg, James Maltese, 

Constantine Boubalos, Grant Miller, Julie Henriques, and James Manske. Plaintiff Oyarzo is 

seeking costs for the service of deposition subpoenas on Darlene Hutchins, Gregory Oliver, 

Carlyn Drivdahl, Tim Wertz, and Marcella Wells. 

Defendants object to the reimbursement of costs on the grounds that some of the 

witnesses did not testify at the trial of this matter, and therefore, the expenses are not reasonably 

and necessarily obtained in this action. 

Plaintiff Oyarzo’s request for costs for service of the deposition subpoena for Mr. Wertz 

is denied as the Court has found these costs are not taxable to Defendant TFD. Similarly, 

Plaintiff Hart’s request for costs for service of the deposition subpoenas for Nicholas Ohler 

(individual), Michael Noonan, Constantine Boubalos, Virginia Van Bolt, Jeremy Proctor, and 

James Manske are denied as the Court has found these costs are not taxable to Defendant 

Hockett. 

In his reply to the opposition to this motion, Plaintiff Hart has withdrawn his request for 

costs for the depositions of James Maltese, Joseph Turner, Grant Miller, Brian Machado, Julie 

Henriques, Craig Pedro, Lawrence Houseburg, William Hutchins, Sean McKernan, and Tim 

Wertz as he determined they are not taxable to Defendant Hockett. For that reason, the request 

to tax costs for service of these deposition subpoenas is denied. 

Plaintiff Oyarzo also seeks costs for the service of deposition subpoenas on Tuolumne 

Fire District’s former attorneys, Gregory Oliver and Carlyn Drivdahl. However, these 

depositions were not taken and Plaintiff Oyarzo fails to show how the depositions of county 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 25 of 34
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

26

counsel would be necessarily obtained in prosecuting his FLSA claims. The costs for service of 

these subpoenas are denied.

Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart seek costs for service of the deposition subpoena of Darlene 

Hutchins who was deposed on October 9, 2012. The cost to serve the subpoena on Ms. Hutchins 

was $110.00. Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $16.50 and Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of 

$13.20 for service of the deposition subpoena on Ms. Hutchins.

Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart seek costs for service of the deposition subpoena on Marcella

Wells and Nicholas Ohler. Ms. Wells and Mr. Ohler were both served at the same time at the 

Tuolumne Fire Station. (ECF No. 249-3 at ¶ 3.) The total cost to serve the deposition subpoenas

on was $105.00.16 (Id. at 7.) These costs shall be apportioned as $75.00 for the service on Ms. 

Wells and $30.00 for the reduced amount to serve Mr. Ohler at the same address. Plaintiff

Oyarzo is awarded costs of $11.25 and Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $9.00 for the service of 

the deposition subpoena on Ms. Wells. Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $4.50 and Plaintiff 

Hart is awarded $3.60 for service of the deposition subpoena on Mr. Ohler.

Plaintiff Hart seeks costs for service of the deposition subpoena on Jason Podesta. (ECF 

No. 249-3 at ¶ 3.) The cost to serve the deposition subpoena on Mr. Podesta was $95.00. (Id. at 

7.) Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $11.40 for the service of the deposition subpoena on Mr. 

Podesta. 

Plaintiff Hart seeks costs for service of the deposition subpoena on Colleen Murray. The 

taxable cost for service of the deposition subpoena on Ms. Murray is $60.00. Plaintiff Hart is 

awarded costs of $10.00 for service of the deposition subpoena on Ms. Murray. 

4. Trial Subpoena Service Fees

Plaintiffs Hart and Oyarzo are seeking costs for the service of trial subpoenas on Marcella 

Wells, Darlene Hutchins, and Turner. Plaintiff Hart seeks costs for service of trial subpoenas on 

Defendant Hockett, Defendant Powers, Virginia Van Bolt, Nicholas Ohler, Sean McKernan, and 

Jason Podesta. For the reasons discussed supra at IV.E.1.b, Plaintiff Hart’s request to tax the 

 

16 This invoice also charges for service on Mr. Ohler, based upon the date this would be for the deposition as the 

person most knowledgeable. The cost of service is taxable to Plaintiff Oyarzo, but is denied for Plaintiff Hart.

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 26 of 34
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

27

service fees for Virginia Van Bolt, Nicholas Ohler, and Sean McKernan are denied. Plaintiff 

Oyarzo seeks costs for service of a trial subpoena on Joseph Turner. 

Defendants argue that since Plaintiffs did not call Ms. Wells, Ms. Hutchins and Mr. 

Turner at trial the cost of the subpoenas is not reasonably necessary in this action. However, 

these witnesses were all called by Defendants and Plaintiffs did cross examine them. The parties 

were advised prior to trial that they were to take steps to obtain the attendance of witnesses and

could not rely on a witness being on the opposing party’s witness list. (Amended Pretrial Order 

24:26-25:2, ECF No. 166.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ efforts to ensure the attendance of 

these witnesses in the event that Defendants did not call them at trial was reasonably necessary. 

The Court shall apportion any costs associated with trial equally between the three defendants

unless otherwise specified.

Plaintiff Hart’s request to tax costs for the service of the trial subpoena on Defendant 

Powers is denied as the costs should be taxed solely to Defendant Powers. Hynix Semiconductor 

Inc., 697 F.Supp.2d at 1147. 

Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart seek costs for the trial subpoena of Marcella Wells and 

Darlene Hutchins. The costs of service for each of these subpoenas is $55.00 for a total of 

$110.00. (ECF No. 243-3 at 17.) As these witnesses were relevant to all claims that were 

proceeding at trial, the costs shall be apportioned between all three defendants. Plaintiffs Oyarzo

and Plaintiff Hart are each awarded costs of $36.67 for service of the trial subpoenas on Marcella 

Wells and Darlene Hutchins. 

Plaintiff Hart is awarded $55.00 for the cost of serving the trial subpoena on Defendant 

Hockett. (ECF No. 243-3 at 17.)

Plaintiff Oyarzo is seeking costs for the service of the trial subpoena on Mr. Turner. Mr. 

Turner’s testimony was relevant Plaintiff Oyarzo’s FLSA claim and Plaintiff Hart’s claim 

against Defendant Powers and shall be apportioned accordingly. The cost of serving the trial 

subpoena on Mr. Turner was $55.00. Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded $27.50 for service of the trial 

subpoena on Mr. Turner. Plaintiff Hart’s request to tax costs against Defendant Hockett is 

denied.

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 27 of 34
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

28

Plaintiff Hart is seeking costs for serving the trial subpoena on Mr. Podesta. The costs of 

serving the trial subpoena on Mr. Podesta was $50.00. (ECF No. 243-3 at 17.) Mr. Podesta’s 

testimony was relevant to the retaliation claims against Defendants Powers and Hockett. 

Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $25.00 for service of the trial subpoena on Mr. Podesta. 

5. Fees Awarded for Service of Summons and Subpoenas

As set forth above, Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $136.42 for service and Plaintiff 

Hart is awarded costs of $203.87 for service in this action.

H. Witness Fees

Plaintiff Hart is seeking $1,201.28 in witness fees. (ECF No. 284 at 2.) Plaintiff Oyarzo 

is seeking $607.21 in witness fees. (ECF No. 285 at 7.) Defendants object on the grounds that 

the plaintiffs are attempting to obtain fees beyond those authorized, and fees for witness that 

were not reasonably incurred as they did not appear at trial. (ECF No. 269 at 11-12; ECF No. 

270 at 13.) Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart reply that they have reduced the fees they are seeking to 

the extent they are in excess of those allowable. (ECF No. 279 at 5; ECF No. 285 at 6.) 

1. Deposition Witness Fees

Plaintiff Hart seeks fees for the depositions of Colleen Murray, Virginia Van Bolt, 

Michael Noonan, Jeremy Proctor, James Manske, Deborah Russell-Bautista, Scott Kenley, and 

Craig Enos.17 For the reasons discussed supra at IV.E.1.b the costs for the depositions of 

Virginia Van Bolt, Michael Noonan, Jeremy Proctor, and James Manske are denied. Plaintiff 

Oyarzo seeks fees for the depositions of Deborah Russell-Bautista, Craig Enos, Lawrence 

Crabtree, and Tim Wertz. For the reasons discussed supra at IV.E.1.b the costs for the 

deposition of Tim Wertz is denied. 

While Plaintiffs state that Defendants are correct and they are not entitled to the entire 

appearance fee and have recalculated the request for fees, Plaintiffs do not provide the Court 

with any information on how this amount was recalculated nor do they provide the revised 

 

17 In his reply, Plaintiff Hart has withdrawn his request for costs for the depositions of Rex Buthman, James 

Rafferty, James Maltese, Joseph Turner, Grant Miller, Brian Machado, Julie Henriques, Craig Pedro, Larry 

Houseburg, William Hutchins, Sean McKernan, David Moore, Beth DeLima, Laurence Crabtree, Justin Birtwhistle, 

Tim Wertz, and Kevin Booth. (ECF No. 279.) 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 28 of 34
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

29

amount requested for any witness. Accordingly, where Plaintiffs have paid an appearance fee for 

the attendance of a witness, the Court shall tax the $40.00 attendance fee, but Plaintiffs have not 

met their burden of proof on the reasonableness of any additional costs. Berryman, 161 F.R.D. 

at 344. 

The witness fee for the deposition of Colleen Murray was $60.54 ($40.00 for attendance 

and $20.54 in mileage). (ECF No. 234-3 at 104; ECF No. 234-2 at 6.) Plaintiff Hart is awarded 

costs of $30.27 for the witness fee for Colleen Murray. 

The witness fee for the deposition of Deborah Russell-Bautista was $150.00. (ECF No. 

234-3 at 117.) Plaintiffs will be reimbursed costs of $46.55 ($40.00 attendance fee and $6.55 in 

mileage18). Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $6.98 and Hart is awarded costs of $5.59 for the 

witness fee for Ms. Russell-Bautista. 

The witness fee for the deposition of Scott Kenley was $375.00. (ECF No. 234-3 at 119.) 

Plaintiff Hart will be reimbursed for the attendance fee of $40.00. Plaintiff Hart is awarded 

$4.80 for the witness fee for Scott Kenley.

The witness fee for the deposition of Craig Enos was $640.00. Plaintiffs will be 

reimbursed for the attendance fee of $40.00. Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded $6.00 and Plaintiff Hart 

is awarded $4.80 for the witness fee for Craig Enos.

The witness fee for the deposition of Lawrence Crabtree was $675.00. Plaintiff Oyarzo 

will be reimbursed for the attendance fee of $40.00. Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded $6.00 for the 

witness fee for Lawrence Crabtree.

2. Trial Witness Fees

Plaintiff Hart is seeking witness fees for Kenneth Hockett, Darlene Hutchins, Brian 

Machado, Jason Podesta, Virginia Van Bolt, Marcella Wells, Toney Powers, Grant Miller, 

Stephenie Burns, Ben Orr, and Todd McNeal. (ECF No. 234-2 at 8.) Plaintiff Oyarzo is seeking 

witness fees for Darlene Hutchins, Marcella Wells, Joseph Turner, Stephenie Burns, and Ben 

 

18 The address at which Ms. Russell-Bautista was served is 11.8 miles from the deposition address. The mileage rate 

in November 2012 was .555 per mile. 

As Plaintiffs have not provided any information by which the Court can determine mileage on the remaining expert 

witness depositions, mileage is denied for all remaining expert witness costs.

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 29 of 34
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

30

Orr. (ECF No. 242-2 at 5.) Defendants object to the fees for Marcella Wells and Virginia Van 

Bolt as they were not called as witnesses at trial. (ECF No. 270 at 13.) 

As discussed supra at IV.E.1.b, Defendants objection to the fee for Marcella Wells is 

overruled and Plaintiffs shall be reimbursed for Ms. Wells’ witness fees. However, Ms. Van 

Bolt was not called as a witness during the trial of this matter and for that reason and those 

discussed infra at IV.E.1.b, the Court finds that the fees were not necessarily obtained for use in 

the case. 

Further, the Court finds that the witness fee for Defendant Powers would be taxable to 

him and should not be borne by the other defendants. Plaintiff Hart’s request to tax Defendant 

Hockett for the witness fee for Defendant Powers is denied. Further, for those fees which 

Plaintiff Hart seeks to recover the total fee, the testimony was also relevant to those claims 

proceeding against Defendant Powers and shall be apportioned equally between these two 

claims. As to the remaining witnesses to whom Defendants did not object, the Court shall award 

costs. 

The witness fees for Kenneth Hockett are $171.08 (40.00 for attendance and $131.08 in 

mileage). (ECF No. 234 at 3; ECF No. 234-3 at 123.) Plaintiff Hart shall be awarded costs of 

$171.08. 

The witness fees for Darlene Hutchins are $176.73 ($40.00 for attendance and $136.73 in 

mileage). (ECF No. 234 at 3; ECF No. 234-3 at 125.) Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart are each 

awarded costs of $58.91.

The witness fees for Brian Machado are $176.73 ($40.00 for attendance and $136.73 in 

mileage). Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $88.37.

The witness fees for Jason Podesta are $166.56 ($40.00 for attendance and $126.56 in 

mileage). (ECF No. 234 at 3; ECF No. 234-3 at 129.) Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $83.28.

The witness fees for Joseph Turner are $176.73 ($40.00 for attendance and $136.73 in 

mileage). (ECF No. 234 at 3; ECF No. 234-3 at 131.) Mr. Turner’s testimony was also relevant 

to those claims proceeding against Defendant Powers and shall be apportioned between the 

FLSA claim proceeding against Defendant TFD and Defendant Powers. Plaintiff Oyarzo is 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 30 of 34
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

31

awarded costs of $88.37. 

The witness fees for Marcella Wells are $176.73 ($40.00 for attendance and $136.73 in 

mileage). (ECF No. 234 at 3; ECF No. 234-3 at 135.) Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart are each 

awarded fees of $58.91.

The witness fees for Stephenie Burns are $176.73 ($40.00 for attendance and $136.73 in 

mileage). (ECF No. 234 at 3; ECF No. 234-3 at 137.) Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart are each 

awarded $58.91.

The witness fees for Grant Miller are $176.73 ($40.00 for attendance and $136.73 in 

mileage). (ECF No. 234 at 3; ECF No. 234-3 at 141.) Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $88.37.

The witness fees for Ben Orr are $176.73 ($40.00 for attendance and $136.73 in 

mileage). (ECF No. 234 at 3; ECF No. 234-3 at 143.) Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart are each 

awarded $58.91.

The witness fees for Todd McNeal are $177.86 ($40.00 for attendance and $137.86 in 

mileage). (ECF No. 234 at 3; ECF No. 234-3 at 145.) Plaintiff Hart is awarded costs of $88.93.

3. Total Award of Witness Fees

Based on the foregoing Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded $342.99 in witness fees for the 

following individuals.

Joseph Turner $88.37

Darlene Hutchins $58.91

Stephenie Burns $58.91

Ben Orr $58.91

Marcella Wells $58.91

Deborah Russell-Bautista $6.98

Craig Enos $6.00

Lawrence Crabtree $6.00

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Hart is awarded $801.13 in witness fees for the 

following individuals.

Defendant Hockett $171.08

Darlene Hutchins $58.91

Brian Machado $88.37

Stephenie Burns $58.91

Ben Orr $58.91

Colleen Murray $30.27

Jason Podesta $83.28

Marcella Wells $58.91

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 31 of 34
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

32

Grant Miller $88.37

Todd McNeal $88.93

Deborah Russell-Bautista $5.59

Craig Enos $4.80

Scott Kenley $4.80

I. Fees for Exemplification and the Cost of Making Copies

Plaintiff Hart is seeking $2,135.46 in fees for exemplification. (ECF No. 284 at 2.) 

Plaintiff Oyarzo seeks exemplification and copying fees in the amount of $1,971.03. (ECF No. 

251 at 14.) Defendants object to the costs of $1,202.85 for copying TFD discovery documents. 

Defendants contends that these costs were for scanning images of warrants from 2008-2012 

which are not relevant to the claims proceeding against Defendants Hockett or TFD. These 

documents were included in the trial binder but were not used during trial. (ECF No. 270 at 14.) 

Defendants also challenges costs associated with the trial binders as Plaintiff Hart only entered 

42 of over 230 exhibits in evidence at trial. 

Plaintiff Hart seeks costs for copying Plaintiff Oyarzo’s school records. (ECF No. 234-3 

at 150.) As discussed infra at IV.G.2 these records are not related to Plaintiff Hart’s retaliation 

or FPBR claims and therefore the costs are denied. 

Plaintiff Hart seeks costs for duplication of Plaintiff Oyarzo’s records from the Tuolumne 

County Sheriff Department. (ECF No. 234-3 at 152.) Records from the Sheriff Department on 

Plaintiff Oyarzo are unrelated to the claims upon which Plaintiff Hart prevailed at trial and these 

costs are denied.

Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart each seek costs for duplication of Tuolumne Fire District 

warrants from 2008-2012. While these records would be relevant to Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart’s 

FLSA claim and potentially Plaintiff Oyarzo’s retaliation claims that were decided at summary 

judgment, they are unrelated to the retaliation and FPBR claims upon which Plaintiff Hart 

prevailed at trial. Plaintiff Hart’s request to tax costs is denied. These costs shall be apportioned 

between Plaintiff Hart’s FLSA claim, Plaintiff Oyarzo’s FLSA claim and Plaintiff Oyarzo’s 

retaliation claim. Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $300.71 for the duplication of these 

documents. 

Plaintiff Hart seeks costs for copies of his medical records, however the medical issue 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 32 of 34
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

33

arose in the context of whether he would be able to receive post-termination damages due to the 

finding by the Workman’s Comp doctor that he was unable to work as a firefighter. (ECF No. 

157.) Plaintiff Hart could not seek post-termination damages on the claims on which he 

prevailed at trial and Plaintiff Hart’s request for costs is denied. 

Plaintiffs Oyarzo and Hart seek $2,724.11 in costs for trial binders. (ECF Nos. 234-3 at 

159, 161.) Defendants oppose the cost stating that Plaintiffs are not entitled to costs for binders 

and tabs as they are not included in the costs of making copies under § 1920(4). The costs of 

document assembly fees for tabs and folders may be awarded if such costs are related to 

categories of documents to which the recovery of reproduction costs is appropriate under section 

1920(4). In re Ricoh, 661 F.3d at 1368 n.3. However, the costs of office supplies are not taxable 

under section 1920. Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cameron Intern. Corp., No. 1:05-cv-01411-MLHGSA, 2012 WL 4210104, at *5 (E.D. Cal. “Sept. 12, 2012). In this instance, the Court ordered 

the parties to produce trial binders with tabs for each exhibit. The Court finds that costs for 

binders and tabs are reasonably obtained for trial of this matter. 

However, the Court notes that Plaintiffs exhibits did include a large number of documents 

that do not appear to have been relevant to the claims that were still proceeding in this action. 

Accordingly, the Court shall apportion the cost of the trial binders as if this action had proceeded 

to trial on all claims against all defendants. Plaintiff Oyarzo shall be awarded costs of $408.62

and Plaintiff Hart shall be awarded costs of $326.89 for the costs of the trial binders.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Oyarzo is awarded costs of $709.33 and Plaintiff Hart is 

awarded costs of $326.89 for exemplification and copying of documents. 

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Hart’s motion for review of the Clerks taxation of costs (ECF No. 276) is 

GRANTED, and the bill of cost filed on February 6, 2014, (ECF No. 267) is 

amended to tax costs of $3,484.06 against Plaintiff Hart;

2. Plaintiff Hart’s motion for review of the order taxing costs in favor of Defendant 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 33 of 34
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

34

TFD (ECF No. 275) is GRANTED; 

3. The order filed February 6, 2014 taxing costs against Plaintiff Hart (ECF No. 266) 

is VACATED. 

4. Plaintiff Hart’s motion for taxation of costs against Defendants Hockett and TFD 

(ECF No. 249) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 

a. Plaintiff Hart’s motion to tax costs against Defendant TFD is DENIED;

b. Plaintiff Hart’s motion for taxation of costs against Defendant Hocket is granted 

in the amount of $4,292.22; and

5. Plaintiff Oyarzo’s motion for taxation of costs against Defendant TFD (ECF No. 

251) is granted in the amount of $3,585.25.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 310 Filed 04/30/14 Page 34 of 34