Opinion
Civ. No. 2:14-2921 WBS CKD
08-08-2016
THERESA MARIE NIESEN, Plaintiff, v. L. GARCIA, YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY; J. CEJA, YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY; J. LAZARO, YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY; M. NEVIS, YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY; OFFICER BIGELOW, ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER FOR YOLO COUNTY; YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; YOLO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and Does 1 through 50, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Judgment was entered in favor of defendants on July 12, 2016. (Docket No. 31.) On July 13, 2016, defendants submitted a Bill of Costs pursuant to Local Rule 292(b). (Docket No. 32.) Defendants claim costs of $4,616.55 for obtaining printed and electronic copies of witness deposition transcripts and related exhibits for use in this case. (Id.) Plaintiff has not objected to the costs pursuant to Local Rule 292(c).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) governs the taxation of costs and provides that "costs--other than attorney's fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1920 enumerates which costs are taxable and allows for the recovery of "[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case," id. § 1920(2), and "the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case," id. § 1920(4). "The cost of deposition copies is 'encompassed' by section 1920(2), and is therefore properly taxed" under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990). "[28 U.S.C.] section 1920(4) enables a court to award copying costs for any document 'necessarily obtained for use in the case' and does not specifically require that the copied document be introduced into the record to be an allowable cost." Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir. 1990).
Given that defendants are the prevailing parties in this case, the court has discretion to allow for their "recovery of deposition costs and copying costs." See Sea Coast Foods, Inc. v. Lu-Mar Lobster & Shrimp, Inc., 260 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2001); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 292(f). "Rule 54(d) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties, and it is incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the costs should not be awarded." Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). After reviewing defendants' Bill of Costs and in light of the fact that plaintiff has not objected, the court finds that defendants' claimed costs of $4,616.55 are reasonable here.
Accordingly, costs of $4,616.55 will be taxed to plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 8, 2016
/s/_________
WILLIAM B. SHUBB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE