Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01310/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01310-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FADI SABA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNISYS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01310-WHO 

ORDER REGARDING SABA'S 

RESPONSE TO TAXATION OF COSTS

Re: Dkt. No. 169

After I issued the Order reviewing costs, plaintiff Fadi Saba filed an opposition to 

defendant Unisys Corporation’s petition for review. Dkt. No. 169. The docket indicated that Saba 

had until September 15, 2015 to respond. Accordingly, I have considered this opposition filed on 

September 15, 2015, and reviewed Unisys’s motion to review costs. However, my decision 

remains the same. 

This is the third time the costs have been reviewed in this case. Saba objected to Unisys’s 

bill of costs when it was first submitted, and the clerk considered Saba’s objections in awarding 

costs. After the clerk taxed costs, Unisys petitioned this Court for review. I granted Unisys’s 

motion, reviewed the court’s taxation of costs, and amended the clerk’s award of costs. In doing 

so, I also looked at Saba’s original objections to the costs as well as the applicable law and the 

necessities of this case. 

I have carefully considered the arguments that Saba presents in his most recent opposition. 

I have also considered the governing law. They do not change any of my determinations. Many 

of Saba’s arguments were addressed by the first award of costs by the clerk. For example, the 

clerk did not tax costs to expedite service, reduced costs after considering Saba’s objections to 

travel expenses, and reduced copying fees to the allowable copying rate. I found those reductions 

to be appropriate and did not alter them. 

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 171 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Saba also objects to the way that the depositions were conducted, but provides no reason 

that this is a proper basis to deny costs. That said, I have read the depositions that the parties 

submitted in the summary judgment briefing, and considered them when I made my decision 

reviewing the costs. The costs awarded to Unisys reflect the costs that were necessary to prepare 

for trial. 

Finally, Saba reiterates his argument that I disallow costs entirely. He does not provide 

any information that was not already addressed, or other support for his position. My decision not 

to exercise my discretion to disallow costs is not altered. 

In addition, Saba raises issues with my Order as it pertained to his desire to seal certain 

information. I explained in the prior order that Saba, as all other litigants, must abide by the 

procedural requirements to file information under seal. Before he may file anything under seal, he 

must first file a motion to seal. Saba is encouraged to seek assistance from the pro se help desk in 

filing any such motions (415.782.9000 extension 8657). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 171 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 2