Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV08149 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Pina argues that the filing fees requested are reasonable because she was required to file electronically and the papers filed were not excessive or unnecessary. The deposition costs were allowable because travel expenses and deposition transcripts are expressly allowed under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5. The service frees are allowable because they were used to serve deposition subpoenas and serving Plaintiff with a restraining order.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover certain costs in any action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. section 1033.5(a).) Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5 (c)(2), allowable costs “shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” Subdivision (3) requires: “[a]llowable costs shall be reasonable in amount.” There is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements, or any other such documents be attached to the memorandum. Only if the costs have been put in issue via a motion to tax costs must supporting documentation be submitted. (Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 308.)

In ruling upon a motion to tax costs, the trial court's first determination is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face. “If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show [the costs] to be unnecessary or unreasonable.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) Where costs are not expressly allowed by the statute, the burden is on the party claiming the costs to show that the charges were reasonable and necessary. (Id. at 132.) “Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 810.)

Filing and motion fees are specifically allowed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(a)(1). Hence, the burden is on Plaintiff to demonstrate that the costs are unnecessary or unreasonable.

Pina seeks costs for motion filing fees, the filing fees for her answer, and remote appearance fees paid to Courtcall. Plaintiff argues that there are extra service fees associated with Pina’s motions. However, these items are for filing fees, not service fees.

As for the remote appearance fees, the Court finds that these fees were necessary for Pina to appear through Courtcall. The Court also finds that the amount requested is reasonable. Thus, these costs should not be taxed.

Travel expenses to attend depositions are expressly allowed under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5 (a)(3)(C). Hence, the burden is on Plaintiff to demonstrate that the costs are unnecessary or unreasonable.

Allowable costs for taking a deposition include the costs of photocopying business records produced in lieu of a personal appearance by the custodian of records under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2020.020 and 2020.410. (Naser v. Lakeridge Athletic Club¿(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 571, 578.)

Here, Pina’s counsel testifies that Pina felt nervous and was more comfortable with counsel being present in person at her deposition. Although Plaintiff argues the cost is not reasonable because remote deposition was available, Pina was not required to proceed with her deposition remotely without the presence of her counsel. The Court finds that Pina’s counsel’s travel expenses were incurred for the purpose of attending Pina’s deposition. Although travel expenses for local travel by attorneys are not allowable, Pina’s counsel is based in Sacramento and Pina’s deposition was to take place in Santa Ana. The cost of the flights to and from Santa Ana and other transportation expenses appear reasonable. Although the deposition was cancelled at the last minute by Plaintiff’s counsel, Pina still incurred these expenses in preparation for the deposition. Because Pina’s counsel incurred travel expenses to attend Pina’s deposition, the costs should not be taxed.

Pina also employed a mobile copy service to serve deposition subpoenas, travel to records custodians, make copies of records produced, and deliver the records. Although the cost of photocopying is generally, not allowable, the cost of copying business records to obtain records through a deposition subpoena is allowable. These are allowable deposition costs.

Plaintiff also objects to the fees for service of process included in Pina’s Attachment 5D. These entries are primarily fees incurred from the use of the mobile copy service. As discussed above, costs to obtain business records through deposition subpoenas are allowable.

Next, Pina seeks fees for service fees related to a restraining order Pina obtained after Henry Murphy threatened her at her residence. This does not appear to be related to litigation in this matter. Thus, $555 must be taxed from Pina’s memorandum of costs.

There is also a charge for electronic filing related to the response to an OSC filed in August 2022 in personal injury case. The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles implemented mandatory electronic filing for parties represented by attorneys. Although the invoice states the cost was $37.70, the chart in the memorandum of costs states the cost was $31.70. This cost, though in the wrong category, is allowable under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(a)(14). This cost appears reasonable and necessary and should not be taxed.

Plaintiff also objects to costs for electronic filing or service in attachment 14. Although labeled service fees, the invoices attached to Pina’s counsel’s declaration show that these are electronic filing fees. As discussed above, the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles implemented mandatory electronic filing for parties represented by attorneys. Thus, this cost is allowable under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(a)(14).