Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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 

ALFRED LAM, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE CITY & COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 10-cv-04641-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

REVIEW TAXATION OF COSTS 

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to review the taxation of costs. Having read 

the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal 

authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in 

part plaintiff’s motion, as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On March 7, 2016, the court entered an order granting defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. On March 14, 2016, defendant filed a bill of costs, seeking 

reimbursement of $22,334.76. Plaintiffs filed objections on March 28, 2016, and on April 

14, 2016, the Clerk of Court reduced defendant’s requested costs by a total of $2,040.71, 

and taxed costs against plaintiffs in the amount of $20,294.05. 

 On April 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a document entitled “notice of motion and motion 

objections to defendants’ bill of cost,” which the court construed as a motion to review 

taxation of costs, and for which the court set a briefing schedule. Defendant has now 

filed its opposition brief, and plaintiffs have filed a reply brief. 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 226 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

DISCUSSION 

A. Legal Standard 

 “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs – 

other than attorney's fees – should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(d). The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 54(d) as “codif[ying] a venerable 

presumption that prevailing parties are entitled to costs.” Marx v. General Revenue 

Corp., 133 S.Ct. 1166, 1172 (2013); see also Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523 

(9th Cir. 1997). The use of the word “should” in Rule 54(d) “makes clear that the decision 

whether to award costs ultimately lies within the sound discretion of the district court.” 

Marx, 133 S.Ct. at 1172-73. 

 The losing party has the burden of overcoming the presumption by affirmatively 

showing that the prevailing party is not entitled to costs. See Save Our Valley v. Sound 

Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Stanley v. University of So. Cal., 178 

F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999)). Generally, only misconduct “worthy of a penalty,” an 

insignificant or nominal recovery, or the losing party’s indigency will suffice. Association 

of Mexican-American Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 

banc); see also Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945 (Ninth Circuit has in past decisions 

considered factors including the losing party’s limited financial resources, misconduct on 

the part of the prevailing party, the importance and complexity of the issues, the merit of 

the plaintiff’s case, and the chilling effect on future civil rights litigants of imposing high 

costs). 

 If the district court wishes to depart from the presumption in favor of awarding 

costs, it must “specify reasons” for doing so by explaining “why a case is not ‘ordinary’ 

and why, in the circumstances, it would be inappropriate or inequitable to award costs.” 

Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 591-93. Although a district court must 

“‘specify reasons’ for its refusal to tax costs to the losing party,” a court need not specify 

reasons for its “decision to abide the presumption and tax costs to the losing party.” 

Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945 (citing Association of Mexican-American Educators, 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 226 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 4
3 

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 

231 F.3d at 591) (“The presumption itself provides all the reason a court needs for 

awarding costs, and when a district court states no reason for awarding costs, [the 

reviewing court] will assume it acted based on that presumption.”). 

 District courts may consider a variety of factors in determining whether to exercise 

their discretion to deny costs to the prevailing party. Association of Mexican-American 

Educators, 231 F.3d at 592-93. A court abuses its discretion by awarding costs only in 

the “rare occasion” where “severe injustice will result from an award of costs,” and the 

court does not conclude that the presumption in favor of awarding costs has been 

rebutted. Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945. 

B. Legal Analysis 

Plaintiffs’ motion largely makes the same arguments that were raised in their 

objections to defendant’s bill of costs. The arguments are, in large part, very generalized 

– arguing that the court should exercise its discretion to not award costs, arguing that 

defendants have unclean hands, and arguing that large portions of the depositions were 

dominated by defendants’ counsel’s objections. Plaintiffs do present a list of specific 

reasons for granting their motion: “(a) only reasonable costs may be recovered and this 

court has the discretion to refuse or apportion costs as appropriate, (b) any of 

defendants’ improper claims for expedited service of process fees should be denied, (c) 

defendants’ excessive claims for transcript costs should be denied, and (d) defendants’ 

excessive claims for photocopying should be denied.” Finally, plaintiffs argue that a costs 

award would impose a hardship on them. 

In general, the court finds that plaintiffs’ arguments do not overcome the 

presumption that the prevailing party is entitled to costs. A number of plaintiffs’ 

arguments are conclusory – for instance, that defendants have unclean hands – and the 

others simply fail to meet the standard of showing that defendant has engaged in 

misconduct “worthy of a penalty.” However, there is one category of costs that are not 

warranted. 

The case law in this district is fairly clear that “costs for expedited transcripts are 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 226 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

no

Ca

(N

de

(N

exp

the

cos

exp

GR

red

$1

Da

 

1 T

Ra

for

tra

the

Ch

Ta

for

exp

t recoverab

al. Sept. 19,

.D. Cal. 201

position tra

.D. Cal. Jan

pedited dep

ese costs a

sts is GRAN

pedited tran

For the

RANTED in

duced by $5

4,977.78. 

IT IS S

ated: May 1

 

This figure in

adogno, $50

r the exped

nscript of th

e deposition

hristopher B

ylor, $310.8

r the exped

pedited tran

ble.” Apple 

, 2014); see

14 (“It is we

anscripts are

n. 23, 2012

position tra

re not reco

NTED to th

nscript cost

e foregoing 

 part and D

5,316.27, re

SO ORDER

19, 2016 

 

ncludes $68

01.93 for th

ited transcr

he depositio

n of Greg F

Baldwin, $50

86 for the e

ited transcr

nscript of th

Inc. v. Sam

e also Hest

ell establish

e not allowa

). Included

nscripts1, a

verable. A

e extent tha

ts, but DEN

reasons, p

DENIED in p

esulting in a

RED. 

 

87.06 for th

he expedited

ript of the d

on of Toni R

Foote, $308

07.87 for th

expedited tr

ript of the d

he depositio

4

msung Elec

terberg v. U

hed in this d

able’”); City

d within the 

and under th

Accordingly,

at it seeks t

NIED on all 

CONCLU

plaintiffs’ mo

part. The c

a total cost

__

PH

Un

he expedite

d transcript

eposition o

Ratcliff-Pow

.88 for the 

he expedite

ranscript of 

eposition o

on of Luis R

ctronics Co.

United State

district that 

y of Alamed

bill of costs

he law of th

 plaintiffs’ m

to reduce t

other groun

USION 

otion to rev

costs award

s award to 

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

ed transcrip

t of the dep

of Mildred S

well, $798.9

expedited t

ed transcrip

f the deposi

of Allen Nan

Recinos. S

., Ltd., 2014

es, 75 F.Su

‘expedited 

da v. Nuvee

s is a total 

his district, t

motion to re

he costs aw

nds. 

view the tax

ded for tran

defendant 

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

t of the dep

position of D

Singh, $457

93 for the e

transcript o

t of the dep

ition of Tam

nce, and $9

ee Dkt. 209

4 WL 47459

upp.3d 1220

delivery ch

en, 2012 W

of $5,316.2

the court fin

eview the ta

ward to rem

xation of cos

scripts sha

in the amo

__________

udge 

position of J

Dennis Doy

7.38 for the 

expedited tr

of the depos

position of R

mara Ratclif

919.55 for th

9, Ex. B. 

933 (N.D. 

0, 1225 

harges for 

WL 177566 

27 for 

nds that 

axation of 

move the 

sts is 

all be 

unt of 

_______ 

John 

yle, $513.81

expedited 

ranscript of 

sition of 

Robert 

ff, $310.00 

he 

1

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 226 Filed 05/19/16 Page 4 of 4