Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01252/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01252-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

– 1 –

08cv1252

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-cv-01252-BAS-RBB

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO 

RETAX COSTS

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

ARLENE SUSAN MEDINA and 

ROBERT LEO MEDINA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs bring this Motion to Retax Costs requesting that the Court exercise 

its discretion to deny costs to Defendants because this case presented a close or 

Case 3:08-cv-01252-BAS-RBB Document 177 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 –

08cv1252

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

difficult legal question, the issue raised by the case was one of public importance, 

and awarding costs would chill prosecution of future cases such as this. (ECF No. 

175.) Defendants oppose, arguing that this case is not out of the ordinary. (ECF No.

176.) The Court, in its discretion, finds this is the kind of extraordinary case that 

warrants denying costs and therefore GRANTS the Motion to Retax Costs.

Accordingly, each party must bear their own costs in this case.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the early morning hours of November 16, 2006, Robert Medina died in a 

volley of gunshots fired at his truck by CHP Officers Nava and Fenton and San Diego 

County Sheriff Officers Ritchie and Taft. The gunfire was the culmination of an 

attempted traffic stop, in which Medina failed to yield. Eventually Medina was 

surrounded by over a dozen law enforcement officers and multiple patrol cars, yet 

refused to get out of his truck, despite the fact that his truck had been rammed by a 

patrol car with such force that the squad car’s airbag deployed, and both Medina’s 

front and rear passenger tires had been shot out and deflated. The four Defendant 

Officers collectively fired more than 36 rounds at the truck. When Medina was then 

pulled from his truck, he was alive, but he died shortly thereafter.

This consolidated lawsuit was filed by Medina’s widow and parents. In a 

Memorandum Decision, the Court of Appeals found the defendants were entitled to 

qualified immunity because at the time they fired the shots at Medina they “had

probable cause to believe that . . . he posed a threat of serious harm to the officers.” 

(ECF Nos. 166, 167.)

Defendants now seek costs from the Plaintiffs in the amount of $34,441.88—

$12,165.24 for Defendant Nava, $11,552.72 for Defendants Richie, Taft and County 

of San Diego, and $10,723.92 for Defendant Fenton. Most of these costs stem from 

transcripts of depositions taken of the numerous officers present at the scene.

II. STATEMENT OF LAW

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), costs other than attorney’s

Case 3:08-cv-01252-BAS-RBB Document 177 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 –

08cv1252

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

fees should be allowed to the prevailing party unless a statute, rule, or court order 

provides otherwise. Thus, Rule 54(d) states a presumption in favor of awarding costs 

to the prevailing party, but vests discretion with the district court to deny these costs. 

In the ordinary case, costs should be awarded to the prevailing party, so a Court 

that exercises its discretion and orders that costs not be awarded must explain why 

the case is not ordinary and why “in the circumstances, it would be inappropriate or 

inequitable to award costs.” Assoc. of Mexican-American Educators v. State of 

California, 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000). Among other reasons, the Court may 

consider whether the case involves issues of substantial public importance and 

whether the issues in the case are close and difficult. Id. The Court may also consider 

“the chilling effect of imposing such high costs on future civil rights litigants.” Id.

(quoting Stanley v. University of Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1079–80 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1022 (1999)). This is not to say that civil rights 

defendants do not get the presumption in favor of costs. But the fact that a civil rights 

litigant raises an important issue, with an answer that is far from obvious, and the 

risk that future litigants may hesitate before raising such issues, are factors that may 

appropriately lead the court to refrain from awarding costs.

III. ANALYSIS

Despite Defendants arguments to the contrary, a situation in which police 

officers shoot and kill an individual is not an ordinary case. It is, one hopes, an 

extraordinary case, one which should always lead to consideration of how and if a 

different result could have been reached. Furthermore, this case poses an issue of 

public importance, far beyond the obvious importance to the litigants. Whenever a 

police officer kills an individual, the public has a great interest in understanding the 

justification for the shooting and in the reassurance that the reasons have been fully 

investigated. 

Furthermore, this case was not clear cut. There were numerous officers at the 

scene, several of whom perceived—in the heat of the moment—the situation 

Case 3:08-cv-01252-BAS-RBB Document 177 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 –

08cv1252

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

differently than others. Medina was not armed. He had not verbally threatened the 

officers, and, if anything, the situation could be described as chaotic. It posed a close 

and difficult legal issue. In addition, the Plaintiffs in this case, all relatives of the 

deceased who were not present at the scene, did not have access to facts allowing 

them to assess the credibility of the different accounts of the police officer witnesses.

Finally, awarding costs in this type of situation could well chill future cases 

like this one, a case that in the long run benefits the public and the officers. It 

reassures the public that after investigation, the officers were justified in their actions. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Retax Costs (ECF No. 

175) and orders that each party bear its own costs in the matter. Judgment is entered 

in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs and the Clerk of Court is ordered 

to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2017

Case 3:08-cv-01252-BAS-RBB Document 177 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4