Landeros v. Schafer ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 JENNIFER LANDEROS, individually No. 2:17-cv-02598 WBS CKD and as successor in interest to 13 DANIEL LANDEROS, Deceased; DEJA LANDEROS, individually and as 14 successor in interest to DANIEL ORDER RE: BILL OF COSTS LANDEROS, Deceased; B.M.L., 15 individually and as successor in interest to DANIEL LANDEROS, 16 Deceased, by and through JENNIFER LANDEROS, as Guardian 17 ad Litem; J.J.L., individually and as successor in interest to 18 DANIEL LANDEROS, Deceased, by and through JENNIFER LANDEROS, 19 as Guardian ad Litem; D.F.L., individually and as successor in 20 interest to DANIEL LANDEROS, Deceased, by and through 21 JENNIFER LANDEROS, as Guardian ad Litem; and T.D.L., 22 individually and as successor in interest to DANIEL LANDEROS, 23 Deceased, by and through JENNIFER LANDEROS, as Guardian 24 ad Litem, 25 Plaintiffs, 26 v. 27 SAMUEL SCHAFER; STEVEN HOLSTAD; JUSTIN PARKER; PATRICK SCOTT; 28 JEREMY BANKS; and CITY OF ELK 1 GROVE, 2 Defendants. 3 4 ----oo0oo---- 5 Defendants have filed a bill of costs, and plaintiffs 6 have filed objections. (Docket Nos. 116, 118.)1 7 Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and Local Civil Rule 54.1 govern the taxation of costs, which are 9 generally subject to limits set under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See 28 10 U.S.C. § 1920 (enumerating taxable costs); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 54(d)(1) (“Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court 12 order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney’s fees-- 13 should be allowed to the prevailing party.”); Crawford Fitting 14 Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 440-45 (1987) (limiting 15 taxable costs to those enumerated in § 1920). 16 The court exercises its discretion in determining 17 whether to allow certain costs. See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 18 1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1996) (district court has discretion to 19 determine what constitutes a taxable cost within the meaning of § 20 1920). The losing party has the burden of overcoming the 21 presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. 22 See Russian River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 23 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the presumption 24 “may only be overcome by pointing to some impropriety on the part 25 of the prevailing party”); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523. 26 I. Plaintiffs’ Request to Deny All Costs 27 1 Defendants have also filed a reply withdrawing their 28 request for certain costs. (Docket No. 119.) 1 Plaintiffs argue that the court should exercise its 2 discretion to deny all costs because of (1) the “important 3 constitutional protections” presented by the case and the fact 4 that it was litigated in good faith; (2) the financial disparity 5 between the parties and plaintiffs’ limited financial means, and 6 (3) the potential chilling effect on future litigation if costs 7 are granted. 8 The court first notes that financial disparity alone is 9 insufficient to deny costs, given that even plaintiffs proceeding 10 in forma pauperis are not per se protected from taxation of 11 costs. See Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 12 1994). The court recognizes that plaintiff Jennifer Landeros is 13 a single mother supporting her five children, who are also 14 plaintiffs in this case. However, plaintiffs provide only a bare 15 assertion that Ms. Landeros earns less than $1,000 a month and 16 “can barely support herself and her children with her limited 17 income and limited Social Security,” without any supporting 18 documentation. Thus, the financial disparity between the parties 19 and plaintiffs’ alleged limited financial means are not 20 sufficient to disallow costs in this case. See, e.g., Fletes v. 21 City of San Diego, No. 13-cv-2279-JAH(JMA), 2016 WL 6804434, at 22 *2-3 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2016) (requiring plaintiff to prove 23 indigence through documentation because “mere assertions are 24 inadequate to demonstrate indigence that would warrant relief 25 from Plaintiff’s obligation to pay costs”); Ritchie v. Haw. Dep’t 26 of Pub. Safety, No. 14-46 LEK-KJM, 2017 WL 4172500, at *3-6 (D. 27 Haw. Aug. 23, 2017) (plaintiff’s representations regarding her 28 employment status, current salary, and state of finances were 1 insufficient, without detailed information regarding her assets, 2 to establish indigency for purposes of bill of costs). 3 The court also rejects as a ground to deny costs 4 plaintiffs’ argument that this case presented important 5 constitutional protections and was litigated in good faith and 6 with a reasonable basis. The rules and case law make it clear 7 that prevailing parties are normally entitled to their costs, 8 even though most cases are litigated in good faith, and there is 9 no blanket exception for civil rights cases. 10 The court further rejects plaintiffs’ argument that 11 granting costs will chill future civil rights litigation. It is 12 true that courts may consider that factor in deciding whether to 13 award costs. See, e.g., Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 14 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he imposition of such high costs 15 on losing civil rights plaintiffs of modest means may chill civil 16 rights litigation . . . .”); Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators 17 v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000), (discussing 18 Stanley). However, in the court’s opinion, awarding the 19 requested costs in this case would not have a significant 20 chilling effect on civil rights litigation of this type, where 21 the requested costs are relatively low, less than $10,000, but 22 the requested recovery was several millions of dollars.2 23 Overall, plaintiffs have not met their burden of 24 showing that costs should not be awarded in this case, and the 25 court finds that “the reasons for denying costs are not 26 2 Indeed, it seems likely that defendants’ Bill of 27 Costs pales in comparison to both sides’ legal fees, expert witness fees, and other expenses incurred during the litigation 28 of this case before and during trial. 1 sufficiently persuasive to overcome the presumption in favor of 2 an award.” See Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 3 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court must provide reasons for 4 denying costs but need not do so if it grants costs, as “[t]he 5 presumption itself provides all the reason a court needs for 6 awarding costs”). Accordingly, the court will not deny all costs 7 and will proceed to examine plaintiffs’ specific challenges to 8 certain items on defendant’s Bill of Costs. 9 II. Specific Objections 10 The court notes that in response to plaintiffs’ 11 objections, defendants have reduced the requested witness fee for 12 Dr. Jason Tovar to the statutory $40 witness fee, and have 13 withdrawn their request for $810 for deposition preparation time 14 for defense expert George Williams. Accordingly, the court need 15 not address plaintiffs’ objections to those requested costs. 16 The parties continue to dispute whether defendants may 17 recover $315.60 for Mr. Williams’ deposition transcript. While 18 it is true that defendants did not call Mr. Williams at trial, 19 “[w]hether a transcript or deposition is ‘necessary’ must be 20 determined in light of the facts known at the time the expense 21 was incurred.” Sunstone Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Alameda Cty. 22 Med. Ctr., 646 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1219 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (Shubb, 23 J.) (citation omitted). Here, obtaining the transcript of Mr. 24 Williams before trial was reasonable because he was a potential 25 witness and it was not clear that he would not be called at 26 trial. See Robinson v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., No. 2:10-cv-3187 27 SOM, 2016 WL 4474505, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. 2016). Accordingly, the 28 court will not disallow this cost. nee nen nen nnn nnn nnn en nn nnn nn nnn enn nee on nnn enn eS I ND OE 1 After reviewing the bill, plaintiffs’ objections and 2 defendants’ reply, the court finds the requested costs, as 3 reduced by defendants’ reply, to be reasonable. Accordingly, 4 costs of $6,804.10 will be allowed for defendants and are taxed 5 against plaintiff. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 | Dated: November 21, 2022 ne aK. (hede. ée~C—— 9 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28