Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCP01822, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Hon. Curtis Kin The clerk for Department 82 may be reached at (213) 893-0530.

Case Number: 22STCP01822    Hearing Date: October 10, 2023    Dept: 82

MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS

Date:               10/10/23 (9:30 AM)                                       

Case:              John Doe v. Monique S. Allard, Ed.D., et al. (22STCP01822)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner John Doe’s Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in the Amount of $6,039.00 is GRANTED IN PART.

On July 18, 2023, the Court entered a judgment in favor of respondent University of Southern California. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to claim costs as a defendant in whose favor a dismissal was entered. (CCP §§ 1032(a)(4), (b).)

Petitioner John Doe moves to tax $6,039.00 of the $7,020.80 in costs claimed by respondent as unreasonable and excessive.

As a general matter, the Court finds it was reasonable for respondent to have attorneys work with respondent to compile the record. Respondent was entitled to have its attorneys review documents concerning the adverse action taken against petitioner for privilege, such as communications between respondent and counsel, and privacy. For example, even if respondent did not produce a redacted version of the administrative record to petitioner (Reply at 7:13-14), the 0.9 hours that attorney Jesse D. Sutz spent reviewing the record for private information of a non-party – to ensure that such information was not produced to petitioner – is reasonable. (Sutz Decl. ¶ 13(c).)

Respondent was also entitled to work with its attorneys to ensure a complete administrative record, in light of petitioner’s demand that the record include “relevant USC policies and procedures that governed the administrative action,” “records for the training and experience for all USC personnel involved in the administrative disciplinary process,” and “all correspondence between or among USC personnel and the complainant professor, the respondent, and all witnesses.” (Sutz Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. A.)

Nevertheless, the Court finds that certain of the attorney fees claimed as costs in compiling the administrative record are excessive.

With respect to 1.2 hours claimed by attorney Sutz in reviewing the production provided by Turnitin.com, which petitioner had subpoenaed, these records were not included in the administrative record. (Sutz Decl. ¶¶ 12, 13(b).) Because such subpoenaed documents were not part of the record, respondent may not recover the fees incurred in reviewing them as costs for preparing the administrative record. (CCP § 1094.6(c) [“The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record”].) The costs are reduced in the amount of $420 (1.2 hours x $350 Sutz hourly rate).

With respect to the 7.3 hours that attorney Derek Ishikawa spent conducting a final review of the record and communicating with respondent concerning missing documents, this time is excessive considering that the record was only 306 pages and attorneys Sutz and Ishikawa had already spent time reviewing the documents for completeness and conferring with respondent. (Sutz Decl. ¶¶ 10, 13(a).) The Court finds that a reduction of $1,575 (3 hours x $525 Ishikawa hourly rate) is proper.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The claim of $6,039 to prepare the administrative record is taxed in the amount of $1,995 ($420 Sutz review of Turnitin.com documents + $1,575 Ishikawa final review and conferring with respondent). Out of the total $7,020.80 claimed in the Memorandum of Costs, respondent may recover a total of $5,025.80 in costs.