Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00407-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Placer, California
Defendant
Federal Transit Administration
Defendant
Tahoe Tavern Property Owners Association
Plaintiff
Tavern Shores Owners Association
Plaintiff
United States Forest Service
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAHOE TAVERN PROPERTY OWNERS

ASSOCIATION; and TAVERN SHORES

OWNERS ASSOCIATION,

NO. CIV. S-06-407 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE;

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION;

and COUNTY OF PLACER, CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

 /

On April 30, 2007, the court granted defendants’ motions for

summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary

judgment. Pending before the court are the bill of costs submitted

by Placer County, the Forest Service, and the Federal Transit

Administration. As detailed below, the court awards Placer County

$1,756.04 in costs and awards Forest Service and the Federal

Transit Administration $1,245.69 in costs.

A. Placer County

Placer County has submitted a bill of costs for $10,300.62,

Case 2:06-cv-00407-LKK -GGH Document 67 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 California Public Resources Code § 21167.6(b)(1) states: 1

“The parties shall pay any reasonable costs or fees imposed for the

preparation of the record of proceedings in conformance with any

law or rule of court.” On its face, the statute does not assign

responsibility to a particular party.

2

the majority of which is attributable to costs associated with

paralegal time spent preparing the administrative record. Placer

County contends that it is entitled to these costs pursuant to

Local Rule 54-292(f)(11), the California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA), and California Public Resource Code § 21167.6(b)(1). As

explained below, the court denies Placer County’s request for

taxation of costs related to paralegal fees for preparation and

indexing of the administrative record, but grants costs associated

with the copying of the administrative record.

Placer County argues that CEQA’s cost-shifting provisions

should apply. Defendant is correct that in state court, as a state

entity, it would ordinarily be entitled to costs for preparation

of the administrative record, including paralegal time, pursuant

to California Public Resources Code § 21167.6. See River Valley 1

Preservation v. Metro Transit Dev. Bd., 37 Cal. App. 4th 154, 182

(1995) (finding that trial court properly awarded costs for

preparation of administrative record, including costs for labor);

see also Black Historical Society v. City of San Diego, 134 Cal.

App. 4th 670, 677-678 (2005) (“[S]tatutory law generally requires

a [plaintiff] to bear the costs of preparing the record.”).

In federal court, however, the court applies federal costshifting provisions, not state cost-shifting provisions. See

Case 2:06-cv-00407-LKK -GGH Document 67 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 5
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

 The rule states: “[e]xcept when express provision therefor 2

is made either in a statute of the United States or in these rules,

costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to

the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(d)(1).

3

Riofrio Anda v. Ralston Purina Co., 772 F. Supp. 46, 54 (D.P.R.

1991) (“Unlike a determination of prejudgment interest and

attorney's fees, which, pursuant to the Erie Doctrine, requires a

federal court sitting in diversity to look to applicable state law,

[] taxation of costs are governed by Rule 54(d).”); see also

Walters v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 692 F. Supp.

1440, 1441 (D. Mass. 1988) (“The predominant view . . . is that in

diversity cases the award of costs is governed by federal law

[rather than state law]”).

Costs are awarded in federal court pursuant to Federal Rule

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

requires the clerk of the court to award certain litigation

expenses to the prevailing party. The Supreme Court has 2

interpreted Rule 54(d)(1) to require that district courts consider

only those costs enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Crawford

Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987)

(“Section 1920 enumerates expenses that a federal court may tax as

a cost under the discretionary authority found in Rule 54(d). . .

. The discretion granted by Rule 54(d) is not a power to evade this

specific congressional command.”). In other words, § 1920 sets a

ceiling on costs that a federal court may award. See Odnil Music

Ltd. v. Katharsis, LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68849 (E.D. Cal. Sep.

Case 2:06-cv-00407-LKK -GGH Document 67 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 5
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

22, 2006) (“Rule 54(d)(1) . . . 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."). 

Section 1920 enumerates six categories of taxable costs.

These include:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;

(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the

stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in

the case;

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;

(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers

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 1928 of this title.

The labor costs associated with preparing the administrative

record, however, are not included within any of these six

categories; accordingly, they are not compensable to the

prevailing party under Rule 54(d)(1).

Placer County also argues that Local Rule 54-292 permits the

consideration of the pertinent state cost-shifting provisions. 

Local Rule 54-292 is substantially similar to section 1920 but

includes a catch-all provision, which states that “[o]ther items

allowed by any statute or rule or by the Court in the interest

of justice” may be taxable. L.R. 54-292(f)(11). The problem,

however, is that § 1920 still sets ceiling on what costs may be

taxed pursuant to Crawford Fitting, and the catch-all provision

within the local rules must be read in manner consistent with

that limitation.

Case 2:06-cv-00407-LKK -GGH Document 67 Filed 06/14/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Accordingly, the court awards the following in costs to

Placer County, excluding items that are either attributable to

paralegal time or have been insufficiently documented:

$1,108.05 Copying cost (line item for “Heavy Litigation”)

$1,772.88 Three additional sets of black and white copies

$147.74 Scanning/OCR

$73.87 Bates Labeling (Electric)

$50.00 CD Duplication (5 CDs)

Subtotal/2 $1,576.27 (after dividing by two, to reflect the

joint NEPA/CEQA record)

$179.77 Copying costs for Placer County’s documents for 

administrative record, including photographs

Total $1,756.04

B. Forest Service & Federal Transit Administration

The court awards the federal defendants $1,245.69 in copying

costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 13, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00407-LKK -GGH Document 67 Filed 06/14/07 Page 5 of 5