Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05437/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05437-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAY YANG, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

MAGEC, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-01-5437 REC/LJO

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION TO TAX COSTS CLAIMED

BY DEFENDANTS CITY OF

COALINGA AND MICHAEL GILMORE 

On May 16, 2005, the court heard plaintiffs' Motion to Tax

Costs Claimed by Defendants City of Coalinga and Michael Gilmore.

Upon due consideration of the record and the arguments of

the parties, the court grants this motion in part and denies it

in part as set forth herein.

Defendants in this action have filed their respective bills

of costs. None of these have been taxed by the Clerk. However,

plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Tax Costs Claimed by Defendants

City of Coalinga and Michael Gilmore, noticing this motion for

hearing. Defendants City of Coalinga and Michael Gilmore have

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 409 Filed 05/17/05 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

2

filed an opposition to this motion.

This motion is not appropriate under Rule 54-292, Local

Rules of Practice. Rule 54-292(b) provides for the filing of a

cost bill. Rule 54-292 then provides in pertinent part:

(c) Objections. The party against whom costs

are claimed may, within ten (10) days from

date of service, file specific objections to

claimed items with a statement of grounds for

objection.

(d) Taxing Costs. If no objection is filed,

the Clerk shall proceed to tax and enter

costs. If objections are filed, they should

state specific objections to claimed items

with a statement of grounds thereof. The

Clerk may require and consider further

affidavits as necessary to determine

allowable costs. The parties may request a

hearing in person or by telephone conference

call, and the Clerk shall schedule the

hearing as needed. Upon the taxation and

entry of costs the Clerk shall serve notice

thereof to all parties.

(e) Review. On motion filed and served

within five (5) court days after notice of

the taxing of costs has been served, the

action of the Clerk may be reviewed by the

Court as provided in Fed.R.Civ.P 54(d). See

L.R. 78-230.

Consequently, until the Clerk taxes the costs, there is nothing

for this court to review. The motion could be denied on this

ground alone.

However, because the motion has been briefed, the court will

address plaintiffs’ objections to the cost bill submitted by the

City of Coalinga and Michael Gilmore.

Plaintiffs object to all costs for attending depositions

except $667.30, object to all copying and exemplification costs,

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 409 Filed 05/17/05 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

3

except $120.92, and object to interpreter costs, except $375.00. 

Plaintiffs contend that these defendants were implicated in only

one of the incidents alleged, the one that occurred on November

17, 1998. Therefore, plaintiffs argue, it was not necessary for

counsel for the moving defendants to attend depositions involving

other incidents in which these defendants did not participate.

However, as the moving defendants note, the Fifth Amended

Complaint, which was the operative pleading when the depositions

were taken, alleges in various sections of the pleading that all

of the defendant officers and entities conspired with each other

and ratified each others’ conduct. The moving defendants argue:

By lumping all of the Officers and all of the

Municipalities together in a conspiracy

theory, and in a theory imposing collective

and mutual responsibility for ratification of

one another’s acts, Plaintiffs sought to make

Coalinga and Gilmore legally responsible for

all of the other defendants’ conduct. These

allegations necessitated Defendant City of

Coalinga and Michael E. Gilmore’s

participation in all of the depositions,

concerning both liability and damages, in

this action. 

At oral argument, plaintiffs contended that the challenged

costs could not have been considered reasonably incurred by the

moving defendants because their motion for summary judgment does

not refer to any evidence other than that related to the search

in which these defendants participated. 

However, as the moving defendants note, that discovery did

not reveal any evidence substantiating plaintiffs' allegations of

conspiracy and/or ratification does not make the challenged costs

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 409 Filed 05/17/05 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

4

unnecessary. The moving defendants had to participate in

discovery and incur the challenged costs in order to defend

against the allegations made against them in the various

complaints filed in this action, including the Fifth Amended

Complaint. Therefore, plaintiffs' objection to these costs is

not well taken.

Plaintiffs object to those “other” costs, totaling $282.92,

that are itemized as LEXIS research costs. Plaintiffs’ objection

has merit. Computer-assisted research costs are not allowable

costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Montgomery v. Aetna Plywood,

Inc., 231 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1038

(2001); Jones v. Unisys Corp., 54 F.3d 624 (10th Cir. 1995);

Frederick v. City of Portland, 162 F.R.D. 139 (D.Or. 1995).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 409 Filed 05/17/05 Page 4 of 4