Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01766/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01766-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TINA BRUCE, JAYME BRUCE, a NO. CIV. S-05-01766 WBS KJM

minor, by and through her 

Guardian Ad Litem, Tina ORDER RE: MOTION TO REVIEW

Bruce, and JESSICA BRUCE, a COSTS

minor, by and through her 

Guardian Ad Litem, Tina 

Bruce,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY,

BOBCAT COMPANY, MELROE

COMPANY, INGERSOLL-RAND

COMPANY, WILDS HORTICULTURAL

SERVICES, INC., SAMUEL WILDS,

and Does 1 through 50,

inclusive, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On March 26, 2007, the court granted summary judgment

for defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company (“Ingersoll”) on all claims,

and on May 8, 2007, entered judgment in Ingersoll’s favor. On

May 14, 2007, Ingersoll submitted a cost bill totaling $8,804.77. 

Plaintiffs objected to various travel costs submitted by

Ingersoll, and on June 20, 2007, this court ordered that costs of

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 84 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 5
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

$6,111.12 be allowed. Plaintiffs now bring a motion to review

costs, arguing that the costs awarded should be reduced because a

large portion were not related to Ingersoll’s motion for summary

judgment.

Local Rule 54-292 dictates that within ten days of

entry of judgment, the prevailing party may file with the Clerk a

bill of costs. L.R. 54-292(b). If the losing party wishes to

file an objection to certain proposed costs, “they should state

specific objections to claimed items with a statement of grounds

thereof.” L.R. 54-292(d). The Clerk then “shall proceed to tax

and enter costs.” Id. The Local Rules provide that, upon a

motion filed within five days after the notice of taxing costs

has been served, “the action of the Clerk may be reviewed by the

Court as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).” L.R. 54-292(e).

Whenever objections to the cost bill are filed pursuant

to L.R. 54-292(d), this court has found in practice that it is

unfair to the Clerk, as well as to the parties, to expect her to

rule on legal objections. Accordingly, it has been this court’s

informal practice under such circumstances to itself undertake a

substantive review in the first instance of the cost bill and the

objections. In accordance with that practice, after reviewing

Ingersoll’s submitted costs, and plaintiffs’ objections, the

court found that plaintiffs’ objections had merit. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1920 (enumerating taxable costs); L.R. 54-292(f); Crawford

Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987)

(limiting taxable costs to those enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“costs other than attorneys’ fees shall

be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 84 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 5
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

otherwise directs . . . .”). Specifically, the court found that

$2,693.43 of Ingersoll’s cost bill was for non-compensable

attorney travel and lodging costs, and thus awarded $6,111.12 to

Ingersoll.

In their present motion, plaintiffs state that they

were awaiting notice of the entry of costs from the Clerk

pursuant to Local Rule 54-292(d) before seeking a review by this

court pursuant to Local Rule 54-292(e). Plaintiffs now, for the

first time, make entirely new objections to the cost bill,

objecting to all deposition, printing, and witness fees (as well

as half of the fees of the Clerk, and fees for summons and

subpoena), arguing that none of these expenses related to

Ingersoll’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs now assert

that only $474.38 in costs ought to be allowed, which equals half

of both the fees of the Clerk and fees for service of summons and

subpoena submitted by Ingersoll. 

Plaintiffs should not ordinarily be allowed a second

bite out of the apple to present an entirely new set objections

to those parts of the cost bill which they did not mention in

their previous objections filed on May 23, 2007. In Kona

Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.

2000) the Ninth Circuit noted that reconsideration is an

“extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

finality and conservation of judicial resources”. See also

United States v. Wetlands Water Dist. 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1130

(E.D. Cal. 2001) (reconsideration is appropriate only when the

court is confronted with new evidence, a change in law, or when

clear error has been committed). Even if the court had literally

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 84 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The court is unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ argument that 1

Ingersoll should not receive any of the costs associated with

discovery. Although the judgment in favor of Ingersoll resulted

from a motion for summary judgment filed solely by Ingersoll,

Ingersoll was nonetheless required to continue to fully litigate

the matter up until they were dismissed from the case. The

discovery costs to which plaintiffs now object were related to

preparing the joint motion for summary judgment (filed

concurrently with Ingersoll’s motion for summary judgment) filed

by all defendants, including Ingersoll. Thus, at least some

costs were incurred by Ingersoll and are properly compensable.

4

followed the procedure outlined in Local Rule 54-292, and the

Clerk had originally ruled on plaintiffs’ objections, there would

be no reason for the court to routinely allow the losing party to

make brand new objections when seeking “review” of the clerk’s

action under L.R. 54-292(e).

Because plaintiffs’ attorney has explained why he was

confused by the Local Rules, notwithstanding his failure to raise

these objections at the proper time, they raise a valid argument

regarding the appropriate allocation of costs to particular

defendants. It could not seriously be suggested that all of the 1

costs were incurred by Ingersoll and none by Clark. Because

Clark did not prevail on its motion for summary judgment it

should not be relieved of the responsibility for paying its share

of the costs. Allocating the costs between the defendants is

complicated in this case by the fact that both Ingersoll and

Clark were represented by the same attorney. When questioned by

the court at the hearing on this motion, defendants’ counsel was

unable to identify what percentage of the costs requested was

fairly attributable to work done on behalf of Ingersoll and what

percentage was attributable to work done on behalf of Clark. 

Since neither party can demonstrate a more appropriate

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 84 Filed 08/22/07 Page 4 of 5
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

distribution, the court will exercise its equitable powers and

reduce the award of the disputed discovery costs to Ingersoll by

half. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997)

(noting the wide discretion afforded district courts in taxing

costs); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175,

177 (9th Cir. 1990) (same). If Clark should ultimately prevail

after trial, it may the make application to recover its half of

the costs; if it does not prevail, it is only fair that Clark

bear its own share of the costs. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the court’s June 20, 2007,

cost order be, and the same hereby is, VACATED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that costs of $3,055.56 will be

allowed to Ingersoll-Rand Company.

DATED: August 21, 2007

 

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 84 Filed 08/22/07 Page 5 of 5