Edwards-Yu v. DeJoy ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 9 LIJUNG EDWARDS-YU, Case No. C21-156-RSM-MLP 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON 11 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR COSTS v. 12 13 LOUIS DEJOY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Louis DeJoy’s Motion for Costs. Dkt. 17 #57. 18 On February 8, 2021, Plaintiff Lijung Edwards-Yu, a former employee of the United 19 States Postal Service (“USPS”), brought this action against Defendant Louis DeJoy, Postmaster 20 General of the USPS. Dkt. #1. In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged causes of 21 22 action under: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for disparate treatment based on race, 23 gender, and national origin; hostile work environment; and retaliation; (2) the Rehabilitation Act 24 of 1973 for failure to accommodate disability and disparate treatment; and (3) the Age 25 Discrimination and Employment Act for hostile work environment, retaliation and disparate 26 treatment. Dkt. #44 ¶¶ 6.1–6.15. Defendant moved for summary judgment on July 11, 2022. 27 28 Dkt. #27. On October 4, 2022, Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be 1 2 granted and that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and this action be dismissed. Dkt. #51. 3 On November 8, 2022, this Court adopted Judge Peterson’s R&R and this action was dismissed. 4 Dkt. #55. Plaintiff has since appealed the R&R (Dkt. #51), the Court’s Order adopting the R&R 5 Dkt. #55), and the Court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint and this action with 6 prejudice (Dkt. #56). Dkt. #59. 7 8 Defendant, as the prevailing party, now moves for costs associated with depositions taken 9 in the case. Dkt. #57. He requests an award of $8,436.14. Id; see also Dkt. #57-1. Plaintiff 10 opposes the motion, arguing that the Court should deny the motion or defer ruling until her appeal 11 is resolved. Dkt. #61. 12 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) allows for costs to be awarded to the 14 prevailing party. “Rule 54(d) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing 15 parties, and it is incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the costs should not be 16 awarded.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal citation 17 omitted). While there is a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party, Rule 18 19 54(d) vests in the district court discretion to do so. Assoc. of Mexican-American Educators v. 20 State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591–92 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff argues, and the Court agrees, that 21 Defendant’s motion for costs should be deferred pending appeal. While the Court adopted Judge 22 Peterson’s R&R recommending the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and 23 dismiss this case with prejudice, the Ninth Circuit may reach a different conclusion. Deferring 24 25 ruling on Defendant’s motion for costs is in the best interest of judicial economy—should 26 Plaintiff prevail on their appeal, Defendant’s motion will be moot. 27 28 Therefore, the Court DEFERS RULING on Defendant’s Motion for Costs, Dkt. #57, 1 2 pending appeal. The parties shall submit a status report within 14 days of the resolution of the 3 appeal. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED this 14th day of December, 2022. 6 7 8 A 9 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28