From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Antonick v. Electronic Arts Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 12, 2014
No. C 11-01543 CRB (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2014)

Opinion

No. C 11-01543 CRB

06-12-2014

ROBIN ANTONICK, Plaintiff, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CLERK'S

TAXATION OF COSTS OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO

DEDUCT ATTORNEY'S FEES AND

EXPENSES OWED TO PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Review of Clerk's Taxation of Costs or in the Alternative Motion to Deduct Attorney's Fees and Expenses Owed to Plaintiff asks the Court to deduct the $28,436.45 that Plaintiff allegedly incurred in connection with his second deposition from the $54,391.62 in costs taxed by the clerk. See generally Mot. (dkt. 560). Plaintiff's request is based on Judge Laporte's order granting Defendant's motion to compel the deposition, which required Defendant "to pay the reasonable expenses arising from the deposition" and "to pay the reasonable attorney's fees for the reasonable time expended in preparing [Plaintiff] for, and defending him at, the deposition." See Order Compelling Deposition (dkt. 182) at 1. Defendant objects that the request is, among other things, unreasonable. Opp'n to Mot. (dkt. 562) at 4.

The Court referred this matter to Judge Laporte to determine what reasonable expenses and fees were in connection with Plaintiff's second deposition. See Order Referring Matter (dkt. 566). Judge Laporte recently issued an Order and Report and Recommendation, in which she recommended deducting $16,692.35 from the costs taxed by the Clerk. See Report and Recommendation (dkt. 573). The time has now passed for any party to serve objections to the Recommendation, and no objections have been filed. See Civil Local Rule 72-3. The Court finds Judge Laporte's Recommendation to be thorough, well-reasoned, and correct, and ADOPTS it in all respects. The Court further holds that Defendant EA was the prevailing party in this case, and that Plaintiff Antonick has not shown why costs should not be awarded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) ("Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs-other than attorney's fees-should be allowed to the prevailing party"); Quan v. Computer Scis. Corp., 623 F.3d 870, 888 (9th Cir. 2010) (burden is on losing party to "'show why costs should not be awarded'").

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Motion, deducting $16,692.35 from the $54,391.62 in costs taxed by the Clerk, resulting in costs of $37,699.27.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Antonick v. Electronic Arts Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 12, 2014
No. C 11-01543 CRB (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2014)
Case details for

Antonick v. Electronic Arts Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROBIN ANTONICK, Plaintiff, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 12, 2014

Citations

No. C 11-01543 CRB (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2014)