Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00559/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00559-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ROBERT I. REESE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; 

Sacramento County Sherriff’s 

Department Deputy DUNCAN 

BROWN (Badge #1220); and 

Sacramento County Sherriff’s 

Department Deputy ZACHARY 

ROSE (Badge #832),

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00559-GEB-KJN

ORDER GRANTING IN PART BILL OF 

COSTS SUBMITTED FOR THE LAW 

OFFICE OF STEWART KATZ; GRANTING 

IN PART BILL OF COSTS SUBMITTED 

FOR THE LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. 

GALIPO

Plaintiff Robert I. Reese, Jr. (“Reese”) submitted two 

Bill of Costs supported by declarations from his counsel. Reece’s 

attorney Stewart Katz, from the Law Office of Stewart Katz,

declares he incurred $19,103.48 in costs. (Pl.’s Bill of Costs 

for the Law Office of Stewart Katz (“Katz Bill of Costs”) 1:24-

26, ECF No. 198.) Reece’s attorney Dale K. Galipo, from the Law 

Offices of Dale K. Galipo, declares he incurred $783.50 in costs.

(Bill of Costs for the Law Offices of Dale K. Galipo (“Galipo 

Bill of Costs”), ECF No. 199.) Deputy Zachary Rose and the County 

of Sacramento (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose each Bill of 

Costs. (Opp’n to Galipo Bill of Costs, ECF No. 200; Opp’n to Katz 

Bill of Costs, ECF No. 201.)

Judgment was entered in this lawsuit against Reece on 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 221 Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 10
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

his federal Fourth Amendment claim and on his claims alleged 

under the California Bane Act; and Reece prevailed on his battery 

claim against Defendants Rose and the County of Sacramento.

LEGAL STANDARD

Reese’s cost requests are considered under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(d)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and Local 

Rule 292. Rule 54(d)(1) states in relevant part: “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)(1). 28 U.S.C. § 1920 

provides:

A judge or clerk of any court of the United 

States may tax as costs the following:

(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.

A bill of costs shall be filed in the case 

and, upon allowance, included in the judgment 

or decree.

28 U.S.C. § 1920.

Local Rule 292(f) prescribes the following costs are 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 221 Filed 06/17/16 Page 2 of 10
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

recoverable:

(1) Clerk's fees (28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 

1920(1)); 

(2) Marshal’s fees and fees for service by a 

person other than the Marshal under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4 to the extent they do not exceed 

the amount allowable for the same service by 

the Marshal (28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(1), 1921); 

(3) Court reporter's fees (28 U.S.C. § 

1920(2)); 

(4) Docket fees (28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(5), 1923); 

(5) Fees for exemplification and copies of 

papers necessarily obtained for use in the 

action (28 U.S.C. § 1920(4));

(6) Fees to masters, receivers, and 

commissioners (Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a));

(7) Premiums on undertaking bonds or security 

required by law or by order of the Court or 

necessarily incurred by a party to secure a 

right accorded in the action;

(8) Per diem, mileage and subsistence for 

witnesses (28 U.S.C. § 1821);

(9) Compensation of Court-appointed experts, 

compensation for interpreters, and salaries, 

fees, expenses, and costs of special 

interpretation services (28 U.S.C. §§ 1828, 

1920(6));

(10) Costs on appeal taxable in the District 

Court pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 39(e); and

(11) Other items allowed by any statute or 

rule or by the Court in the interest of 

justice.

E.D. Cal. L.R. 292(f).

ANALYSIS

“Costs are generally awarded to the successful party 

even if he is not awarded his entire claim.” Thomas v. SS Santa 

Mercedes, 572 F.2d 1331, 1335 (9th Cir. 1978). “A party need not 

prevail on every issue, or even on the ‘central issue’ in the 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 221 Filed 06/17/16 Page 3 of 10
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

case, to be considered a ‘prevailing party.’” Hashimoto v. Dalton

118 F.3d 671, 677 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Tex. State Teachers 

Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 790–91 (1989));

see also Hines v. Perez, 242 F.2d 459, 466 (9th Cir. 1957) 

(upholding trial court’s awarding costs in action since plaintiff 

was the “prevailing party” and “entitled to costs, even though he 

failed to sustain all his claim.” (citation omitted)). Further,

“the Ninth Circuit has construed [Rule 54(d)(1)], as creating a 

presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party.”

Shum v. Intel Corp., 629 F.3d 1360, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2010).

1. Bill of Costs Incurred by Mr. Katz

Defendants object to Reese’s Bill of Costs incurred by

the Law Office of Mr. Katz as follows.

a. Local Rule 292(b)

Defendants argue that Reese’s Bill of Costs accompanied 

by Mr. Katz’s declaration fails to satisfy Local Rule 292(b)’s

requirements. (Opp’n to Katz Bill of Costs, 2:1-10.) Local Rule 

292(b) provides in pertinent part: “The cost bill shall itemize 

the costs claimed and shall be supported by a memorandum of costs 

and an affidavit of counsel that the costs claimed are allowable 

by law, are correctly stated, and were necessarily incurred.” 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 292. Each Bill of Costs includes sufficient 

information to satisfy what is required by Local Rule 292(b). 

Accordingly, this objection is overruled.

b. Fees for Service of Summons and Subpoena

Defendants also object to the fees sought for costs of 

service of trial subpoena. (Opp’n to Katz Bill of Costs, 2:12-

13.) Defendants contend: “Plaintiff provides no explanation as to 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 221 Filed 06/17/16 Page 4 of 10
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

why [these costs] were necessary.” (Id. at 2:15-16.) 

Defendants have not shown that the referenced costs 

were unnecessary. Accordingly, this objection is overruled.

c. Fees for Printed or Electronically Submitted 

Transcripts

Defendants also object to the $14,283.33 Reese seeks 

for deposition transcripts. Specifically, Defendants contend:

“these depositions were merely investigatory” and “Plaintiff 

provides no explanation why or how video copies of certain 

depositions (in addition to the transcript) were necessary, 

particularly when none were used at trial.” (Opp’n to Katz Bill 

of Costs 3:14-16, 17-18.) Defendants further argue: “costs [are] 

taxable for either stenographic transcription or video-recording 

of depositions, but not both.” (Id. at 3:21.)

In evaluating cost requests for transcript copies, the 

transcripts “need not be absolutely indispensable . . . it is 

enough if they are ‘reasonably necessary.’” Barber v. Ruth, 7 

F.3d 636, 645 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting State of Ill. v. Sangamo 

Constr. Co., 657 F.2d 855, 867 (7th Cir. 1981)), superseded by 

Rule on other grounds as stated in Little v. Mitsubishi Motors N. 

Am., Inc. “The proper inquiry is whether the deposition was 

‘reasonably necessary’ to the case at the time it was taken.”

Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 455 (7th Cir. 

1998); see also Allison v. Bank One-Denver, 289 F.3d 1223, 1249 

(10th Cir. 2002) (stating that as long as the deposition appeared 

“reasonably necessary” at the time it was taken, absent other 

reasons for denial, “costs should be approved”).

However, Reese has not shown he was reasonable in 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 221 Filed 06/17/16 Page 5 of 10
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

requesting both stenographic and video copies of depositions, 

since the video depositions were not used at trial. Section 

1920(2) permits taxable costs for “[f]ees for printed or

electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use 

in the case[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) (emphasis added). Therefore, 

this objection is sustained and costs are reduced by $1,564.94, 

which is the amount billed for video copies of certain 

depositions. Because of this reduction, the taxable cost for 

transcripts is $12,718.39.

d. Fees and Disbursements for Printing

Defendants also object to Reese’s inclusion of costs 

for printing, which include “medical and billing records [when]

no such documents were even listed as exhibits for trial.” (Opp’n 

to Katz Bill of Costs 4:2-3.) However, this objection is 

overruled because Reese could have reasonably believed these 

records were necessary at the time they were obtained.

e. Fees for Witnesses

Defendants also object to Reese’s requested costs for 

witnesses, arguing: “Plaintiff provides no authority [which 

demonstrates that] an expert for deposition is recoverable[; 

u]nless the expert is appointed . . . the only fees that are 

recoverable as witness fees under section 1920(3) are those 

allowed by statute for a witness’ attendance at court or a 

deposition.” (Opp’n to Katz Bill of Costs 4:21-24 (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 1821).)

28 U.S.C. § 1821 states in relevant part

A witness shall be paid an attendance fee of 

$40 per day for each day's attendance. A 

witness shall also be paid the attendance fee 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 221 Filed 06/17/16 Page 6 of 10
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

for the time necessarily occupied in going to 

and returning from the place of attendance at 

the beginning and end of such attendance or 

at any time during such attendance.

28 U.S.C. § 1821.

In the bill of costs for the Law Office of Mr. Katz,

Reese argues: “Defendants disclosed Dr. Richard Clark [and Dr.

Jamie Bigelow] as . . . expert witness[es] and [these are the 

fees] [P]laintiff was required to pay pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E).” (Katz Bill of Costs—Attach. 1.)

Rule 26(b)(4)(E) provides in relevant part: 

Unless manifest injustice would result, the 

court must require that the party seeking 

discovery:

(i) pay the expert a reasonable fee for 

time spent in responding to discovery 

under Rule 26(b)(4)(A) or (D); and

(ii) for discovery under (D), also pay 

the other party a fair portion of the 

fees and expenses it reasonably incurred 

in obtaining the expert's facts and 

opinions.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E).

Reese has not justified recovery of more than the 

statutory amount recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1821. Therefore, 

Reese’s fees for Dr. Richard Clark and Dr. Jamie Bigelow are 

reduced to $40.00 each thereby resulting in a recovery of 

$1,025.00 in witness costs.

f. Total Amount Owed to Law Office of Mr. Katz

In accordance with the above stated reductions the 

following costs are awarded to Reese for costs incurred by the 

Law Office of Mr. Katz:

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 221 Filed 06/17/16 Page 7 of 10
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

Fees of the Clerk $350.00

Fees for service of 

summon and subpoena

$589.50

Fees for printed or 

electronically recorded 

transcripts

$12,718.39

Fees and disbursements 

for printing

$1,360.65

Fees for witnesses $1,025.00

Total: $16,043.54

2. Bill of Costs Incurred by Mr. Galipo

Defendants object to Reese’s Bill of Costs incurred by

the Law Offices of Mr. Galipo as follows.

a. Local Rule 292(b)

Defendants contend that Reese fails to meet the filing 

requirements set forth in Local Rule 292(b). However, Reese has 

satisfied those requirements.

b. Fees for Printed or Electronically Submitted 

Transcripts

Defendants also object to Reese’s fees for the 

electronically submitted transcript of expert witness Peter 

Valentin. Specifically, Defendants contend: 

Peter Valentin was Defendants’ retained 

rebuttal only expert witness in blood 

splatter to address the insufficiencies in 

Plaintiff’s expert witness Peter D. Barnett 

for rebuttal only, which Plaintiff deposed on 

May 19, 2015. Defendants moved in limine to 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 221 Filed 06/17/16 Page 8 of 10
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

preclude Plaintiff’s own expert Peter Barnett 

from testifying, while not granted, resulted 

in Plaintiff not calling their own expert at 

trial, rendering Mr. Valentin’s testimony 

moot. Plaintiff apparently paid for the 

transcript well after trial in early 

November. (Check is dated December 21, 2015, 

without explanation why this was necessary.)

(Opp’n to Galipo Bill of Costs 2:21-27.) This objection is 

sustained.

c. Expert Fees

Defendants also object to Reese’s $300.00 request for 

expert witness fees. Reese cites 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as authority 

for awarding this cost; however, Reese did not ultimately prevail 

on any of his claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as required 

to recover fees under § 1988. Further expert fees are only 

permitted in actions to “enforce a provision of section 1981 or 

1981(a).” 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Accordingly, Reese’s $300 fee request 

for his expert witness is reduced to $40.

f. Total Amount Owed to Law Offices of Mr. Galipo

In accordance with the above stated reductions, the 

following costs are awarded to Reese for costs incurred by the 

Law Offices of Mr. Galipo:

Fees for printed or 

electronically recorded 

transcripts $9.00

Fees for witnesses $40.00

Total: $49.00

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 221 Filed 06/17/16 Page 9 of 10
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

CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff is awarded $16,092.54

in costs. The judgment shall be amended to include these costs.

Dated: June 17, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 221 Filed 06/17/16 Page 10 of 10