Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02483/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02483-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 30:181 Environment: Review of Agency Action

---

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 This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSERVATION CONGRESS; CITIZENS )

FOR BETTER FORESTRY; MARY LEE )

STEFFENSEN; and KAREN WILSON, ) 2:08-cv-02483-GEB-DAD

)

Plaintiffs, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

) MOTION*

v. ) 

) 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

(“Rule”) 54(d)(1) for an order vacating the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs

in the amount of $3,561.54 entered on March 24, 2010. The costs were

awarded to Defendant for “costs it incurred in having an independent

vendor copy” “the administrative record, including scanning the record

into electronic format.” (Def.’s Reply in Support of Bill of Costs

2:2-3, 15-16.)

Rule 54(d) prescribes that “costs–other than attorney’s

fees–should be allowed to the prevailing party” unless a federal

statute, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, or court order provides

otherwise. “[C]ourts may tax only costs defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1920.” 

Case 2:08-cv-02483-GEB -DAD Document 71 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Alflex Corp. v. underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 176 (9th Cir.

1990).

“Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of awarding

costs to a prevailing party, requiring the losing party to show why

costs should not be awarded.” State of Idaho Potato Comm’n v. G & T

Terminal Packaging, Inc., 425 F.3d 708, 723 (9th Cir. 2005). “[A]

district court need not give affirmative reasons for awarding costs;

instead, it need only find that the reasons for denying costs are not

sufficiently persuasive to overcome the presumption in favor of the

award. The presumption itself provides all the reason a court needs

for awarding costs[.]” Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d

932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiffs argue the “labor costs” involved with compiling

and copying the administrative record are not taxable costs. However,

28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) defines taxable costs to include “the costs of

making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily

obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) (emphasis added);

Further, the pertinent portion of Eastern District California Local

Rule 138(b) prescribes: “Due to the unusual size of administrative

records, attorneys shall . . . submit . . . a mandatory courtesy copy

. . . for the assigned Judge. . . .” See also E.D. Cal. R. 292(f)(5)

(“Items taxable as costs include . . . fees for . . . copies of papers

necessarily obtained for use in the action”); 21A Federal Procedure,

Lawyers Edition § 51:101 (2008) (providing that the taxable costs

provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) have been “extended to include a

prevailing party’s costs of electronic scanning and imaging”). 

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ challenge to taxed costs for “making copies” of

the administrative record is rejected.

Case 2:08-cv-02483-GEB -DAD Document 71 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Plaintiffs also argue the “equities and public interest at

stake” in National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest

Management Act cases “brought by non-profit, public interest

organizations” disfavor the “excessive” award of costs in this case. 

(Plts.’ Mot. 4:18, 7:5.) However, only two Plaintiffs are non-profit

organizations, while the remaining two are private individuals. 

Further, it has long been accepted that taxation of costs is the “fair

price of unsuccessful litigation,” and “a normal incident of defeat.” 

Baez v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 684 F.2d 999, 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (en

banc) (quoting Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 352

(1981)). Additionally, the amount of the costs here have not been

shown to be an amount capable of chilling future challenges to

environmental decisions as Plaintiffs argue. See generally, e.g.,

Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 946 (affirming an award of costs to the

prevailing defendants where “[t]he district court might have believed

that this relatively small sum–$5,310,55–would not ‘chill’ future

civil rights litigation . . . .”). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ argument

that six copies is excessive is “not sufficiently persuasive to

overcome the presumption in favor of the award”, Save Our Valley, 335

F.3d at 945, in light of Defendant’s argument that these copies were

“not simply for the convenience of counsel” but that they were made

for the Court, each of the parties, and the various United States

agencies involved in the litigation. (Def.’s Opp’n 10:1-24.)

Lastly, Plaintiffs argue “[t]he Clerk did not wait for the

ten-day objection period to expire” before taxing and entering costs. 

This argument is unavailing. Local Rule 292 states “if no objection

has been filed” to a bill of costs “within seven days” “the Clerk

shall proceed to tax and enter costs.” E.D. Rule 292(c)(d) (emphasis

Case 2:08-cv-02483-GEB -DAD Document 71 Filed 06/21/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

added). Here, Defendant submitted its bill of costs on June 5, 2009

and Plaintiffs filed their objections on June 18, 2009. Defendant

renewed its request for a bill of costs on March 18, 2010, following

resolution of Plaintiffs’ appeal; the renewal request raised no new

arguments. Plaintiffs filed objections eleven days after Defendant’s

renewal of its request for bill of costs. These objections were

untimely under the local rules and were made after costs were taxed. 

Further, the objections made the same arguments on which Plaintiffs

rely to have the Clerk’s taxation of costs vacated. For the stated

reasons, the Clerk properly taxed the costs, and Plaintiffs’ motion is

DENIED.

Dated: June 18, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-02483-GEB -DAD Document 71 Filed 06/21/10 Page 4 of 4