Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV11891, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11891    Hearing Date: October 24, 2023    Dept: 68

Motion to Tax Costs on Appeal

Roy Rios vs. Webroot Inc., 20STCV11891

Moving Party: Plaintiff Roy Rios

Background

            Defendant Webroot Inc. filed a memorandum of costs on appeal for total costs of $2,972.44. Plaintiff Roy Rios (Plaintiff) filed this motion to tax costs on appeal pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court 3.7100(b), 8.278(d) and CCP § 1034(b). In Plaintiff’s Reply, Plaintiff indicates that he only wishes to tax the $2,850.94 for printing and copy of briefs and the $72 for preparation of the original and copies of clerk’s transcript or appendix. He no longer disputes the $49.50 for filing fees after Defendant provided invoices for the filing fees.

            Plaintiff argues that the $2,850.94 for printing and copying of briefs is grossly excessive because Defendant used a third party to print and copy the briefs, as well as prepare, format, serve, and mail them. Plaintiff argues that these were not costs that were necessarily incurred, and that Defendant never served any paper copies of briefs on Plaintiff. Defendant argues in its opposition that these costs were for the four separate briefs that it filed with the Court of Appeal.

            Plaintiff also argues that the $72 for preparation of the original and copies of clerk’s transcript or appendix should be taxed because no party obtained such a transcript during the appeal process, and Defendant has failed to provide an invoice for any such transcript. Defendant claims in its opposition that the transcript was a trial court transcript, but it does not substantiate this claim.

Analysis

Rule of Court 8.278(d)(1) specifies certain recoverable costs on appeal, “if reasonable”. “[I]f the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.)

CCP § 1033.5(c) states that allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and shall be reasonable in amount.

There is no indication that the $72 for original and copies of the court transcript were reasonably necessary to the litigation, nor has Defendant provided any evidence of where this number comes from. The Court taxes the $72 requested for the transcript.

As for the $2,850.94 for the printing and copying of briefs, Defendant has argued that it was necessary because it was for the briefs that were sent to the Court of Appeal. Defendant provided invoices for this amount, attached as Exhibits A and B to the Christiansen Declaration. However, the amount requested by Defendant does not appear to be reasonable. Defendant could have prepared, formatted, served, printed, and mailed the documents itself. Instead, it used a third party service to do this. While the Court is inclined to award some of the costs for this, the $2,850.94 that was requested is not reasonable. The Court will award $2,140 for this request, meaning that these costs are taxed by $710.94. The Court deducted the costs from the invoices that were for “electronic bookmarks,” “electronic services,” and “electronic filing”, as well as shipping and handling and service of documents. Defendant did not make a separate request for costs for these things, only for the printing and copying of the briefs. Defendant could have included the costs for filing under the category for filing fees in the memorandum of costs, but it did not.

The Court taxes Defendant’s memorandum of costs in the amount of $782.94 for the $72 and the $710.94.

Order

            Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is granted in the amount of $782.94.