Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00431/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00431-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leprino Foods Company
Defendant
Kirk Lund
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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----

KIRK LUND, NO. CIV. S-06-0431 WBS KJM

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: COSTS

v.

LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY; and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On June 19, 2007, the court entered final judgment in

this case in favor of defendants. Defendants have submitted a

cost bill totaling $4,693.78; plaintiff has not objected.

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and Local Rule 54-292(f) govern the taxation of costs to losing

parties, which are generally subject to limits set under 28

U.S.C. § 1920. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (enumerating taxable costs);

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

otherwise directs . . . .”); L.R. 54-292(f); Crawford Fitting Co.

v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987) (limiting taxable

Case 2:06-cv-00431-WBS -KJM Document 39 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 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

2

costs to those enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920).

The court exercises its discretion in determining

whether to allow certain costs. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court has

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters

Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990) (same). The

losing party has the burden of overcoming the presumption in

favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. See Russian

River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136,

1144 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the presumption “may only be

overcome by pointing to some impropriety on the part of the

prevailing party”); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523; see also L.R. 54-

292(d) (“If no objection is filed, the Clerk shall proceed to tax

and enter costs.”).

After reviewing the bill, and in light of the fact that

the losing party has not objected, the court finds all costs to

be reasonable. The court notes a mathematical error in adding

together defendant’s copying fees. Specifically, defendant paid

$3,461.20 for copies produced in-house, as well as $78.89 for

copies made in conjunction with subpoenas served, for a total of

$3,540.09. Defendant’s bill of costs lists a total of $3,530.09

for copies. Accordingly, costs of $10,936.13 will be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 21, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-00431-WBS -KJM Document 39 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 2