Huerta v. Nielsen ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID HUERTA, Case No. 18cv1640-MMA (LL) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO RETAX COSTS 14 CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary of [Doc. No. 60] Homeland Security, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff David Huerta is a Seized Property Specialist with United States Customs 19 and Border Protection (“CBP”), Department of Homeland Security. He filed this action 20 pro se pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, which 21 protects federal employees from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or 22 national origin. Plaintiff alleged that his supervisor racially discriminated and retaliated 23 against him. See Doc. No. 20. The government moved for summary judgment as to all 24 claims. See Doc. No. 33. The Court granted the motion and entered judgment in the 25 government’s favor. See Doc. Nos. 50, 51. Thereafter, the government submitted a bill 26 of costs seeking reimbursement for the cost of deposing Plaintiff. See Doc. No. 52. The 27 Clerk of Court awarded the government a partial amount of $1,288.75, over Plaintiff’s 28 objection. See Doc. No. 57. Plaintiff now moves to retax costs pursuant to Federal Rule 1 of Civil Procedure 54(d). See Doc. No. 60. The government opposes the motion. See 2 Doc. No. 58. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 3 DISCUSSION 4 As a matter of course, the prevailing party in civil litigation is entitled to costs. See 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Costs are limited to those sets forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See 6 Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442–43 (1987). Section 1920 7 permits the prevailing party to recover costs for “fees for printed or electronically 8 recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 9 Furthermore, this District’s Civil Local Rules provide for the recovery of costs for copies 10 of “both video and stenographic depositions,” so long as “it could reasonably be expected 11 the deposition would be used for trial preparation.” CivLR 54.1(b)(3). Here, the 12 government clearly deposed Plaintiff for the purpose of trial preparation. The 13 government introduced Plaintiff’s deposition testimony into evidence in support of its 14 motion for summary judgment. See id. (“Depositions need not be introduced in evidence 15 or used at trial to be taxable so long as at the time it was taken it could reasonably be 16 expected that the deposition would be used for trial preparation, rather than mere 17 discovery.”). And the cost associated therewith is minimal considering the nature and 18 duration of this litigation. 19 The award of costs, however, is ultimately a matter within the court’s discretion. 20 See Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators v. Calif., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) 21 (citing Nat’l Info. Servs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1995)); Escriba 22 v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1249 (9th Cir. 2014) (district courts are 23 afforded significant “flexibility in evaluating the suitability of awarding costs in a 24 particular case.”). “Appropriate reasons for denying costs include: (1) the substantial 25 26 27 1 The government opposes Plaintiff’s motion on its merits but also argues that the motion is untimely. The Court disagrees and will consider the motion on its merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); 6(a)(1); 28 1 || public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, (3) 2 || the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff’s limited financial resources, 3 || and (5) the economic disparity between the parties.” Escriba, 743 F.3d at 1247-48 4 || (citing Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 592-93). 5 None of these reasons support vacatur of the Clerk’s order taxing costs in this case. 6 || Although this case was undoubtedly of significant import to Plaintiff, it was not of 7 ||“substantial” importance to the public. Plaintiff contends that payment of the cost award 8 || “would cause an enormous financial hardship .. ..”. Doc. No. 60 at 2. However, Plaintiff 9 || paid the filing fee to initiate this action, he 1s not proceeding in forma pauperis, he is 10 || gainfully employed, and has not otherwise provided evidence in support of his claim of 11 || financial hardship. Moreover, the taxable amount is both allowable and reasonable. The 12 ||issues in this case were neither difficult nor close, particularly in light of Plaintiff’ s 13 || failure to adduce any evidence sufficient to avoid summary judgment. Nor has Plaintiff 14 demonstrated how the costs awarded in this case would have a chilling effect on potential 15 rights plaintiffs. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to retax costs and 18 || AFFIRMS the Clerk of Court’s order taxing costs against Plaintiff in the amount of 19 $1,288.75. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 || DATED: October 28, 2020 Ltd uk Tl = ¢ Ls 9 HO . MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28