Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC609911, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC609911    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to tax costs is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The Court taxes $20,106.33 in claimed costs.

            On 10/27/2022, the jury rendered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

            Now, Defendant moves to tax costs.  

Discussion

Defendant seeks an order taxing the following costs:

-         Item No. 1: $34

-         Item No.3: $40

-         Item No.4: $30,31.70

-         Item No.5: $213.46

-         Item No.8: $4,730

-         Item No.11: $610.15

-         Item No.12: $34,112.40

-         Item No.14: $903.50

-         Item No.16: $50,113.96

The Court addresses each item in turn.

As to Item No. 1, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not justified $34 of the filing amount claimed. In opposition, Plaintiff clarified that the Court requires fees to file a stipulation and to fax-file a Case Management Statement. Plaintiff submitted documentation to corroborate the costs. Accordingly, the Court finds this cost recoverable.

As for Item No. 3, Defendant argues Plaintiff is not entitled to recover $40 in jury food and lodging. The Court agrees. While Plaintiff argues the provision of coffee and donuts was at the Court’s suggestion, the contribution was voluntary and done as a courtesy to the jurors, rather than as a necessary part of litigation. Accordingly, the Court strikes this amount.

As for Item No. 4, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not adequately justified costs totaling $30,313.70. More specifically, Defendant argues that “Twelve witnesses who appeared at trial had been deposed, with the Plaintiff giving four depositions. Id. ¶4. The Court excluded the use of two other depositions taken, so those were not reasonably necessary to the litigation. Id. Even for the number of depositions, the amount appears inflated and unsupported. Most depositions occurred years ago when the cost was lower than it is currently and many lasted less than three hours. Id.” (Motion, 3: 21-26.)

In opposition, Plaintiff apparently concede that the amount is inflated, because she claims the invoices for said depositions totaled $26,111.36, and offers no justification of the $30,313.70 amount. Accordingly, the Court finds that $4,202.34 should be taxed. However, the Court declines to reduce that amount further. The fact that depositions are not ultimately used as evidence does not, on its own, mean that they are not reasonable or necessary to litigation. Parties are encouraged to depose all relevant fact witnesses.

As for Item No. 5, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not adequately established the $253.6 in Service of Process costs. However, in opposition, Plaintiff explained:

The costs of service of process by a public officer, registered process server, or other means are expressly recoverable. []Catherine O’Brien was listed as a witness on Defendants’ witness list. Plaintiff sought to exclude her testimony via a motion in limine because Defendants failed to produce her for deposition. The court urged the parties to take all relevant fact witnesses. The parties stipulation in open court to further depositions. [] Rather than arranging for the witness to be presented for deposition, Defendant required Plaintiff to have to open a case in Pima County, Arizona, have a subpoena issued in a new case, and then to have a process server serve it on Ms. O’Brien. Without the service of subpoena on this deponent, Plaintiff would not have been able to secure her testimony as to her role in the events leading to this lawsuit. [] The price of the service of process was $180.96. [] Similarly, Defendants refused to accept service of a trial subpoena for its former Director of DPSS, Sheryl Spiller. The price of the service of process of the trial subpoena was $72.50. []

(Opp., 5:20-6:5.)

Accordingly, the Court finds these costs recoverable.   

As for Item No. 8, Defendant argues Plaintiff has not adequately justified witness fees totaling $4,730. However, in opposition, Plaintiff set forth documentation of these amounts. (See Horacek Decl. ¶¶ 13-16.) Accordingly, the Court finds these costs recoverable.

As for Item No. 11, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not adequately justified $610.15 in costs for “Models, Enlargements, and Photocopies of Exhibits.” In opposition, Plaintiff explained that the claimed cost consists of $399.99 for the price of exhibit presentation software, paper, a number of 3 ring binders for exhibit binders, trial binders, deposition transcript binders for the Court’s use, and a large easel with paper for presentation, all of which were used at trial. While the Court finds the latter costs to be reasonably necessary, the Court finds that the purchase of specific exhibit presentation software was only convenient or beneficial to Plaintiff’s preparation, and thus is not recoverable.

As for Item No. 12, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not adequately justified $34,112.40 in claimed court reporter fees. Defendant further argues that Court reporters and trial transcript costs that are not ordered by the Court are explicitly not allowable as costs under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(b)(5), citing Walton v. Bank of California Nat’l Ass. (1962) 218 Cal.App.2d 527, 547-548 in support. However, as noted in Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 58, “the parties have to pay the court reporter regardless of whether anyone orders transcripts.” Here, Plaintiff submitted documentation which shows that $34,112.40 was billed by court reporters for their attendance at hearings and trial. The Court strongly encourages the use of court reporters, and finds these costs reasonable and necessary, and thus recoverable.

As for Item No. 14, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not adequately justified $903.50 in Fees for Electronic Filing or Service of Documents through an Electronic Filing Service Provider.” In opposition, Plaintiff provides documentation corroborating these costs. Accordingly, the Court finds these costs recoverable.

As for Item No. 16, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not adequately justified $50,113.96 claimed for “Other” costs. Moreover, Defendant argues that most of the costs requested are not allowable under the Code of Civil Procedure, are unreasonable in amount, or are not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation but are merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. The Court agrees in part. FEHA provides a more lenient standard than CCP section 1033.5 for the recovery of costs, providing the Court with discretion to determine a broader range of costs to be reasonable or necessary to the litigation. The Court finds the expert fees, postage and delivery, travel costs, and production of subpoenaed business documents to be adequately supported and reasonably necessary pursuant to its discretion under the FEHA statute. However, the Court, in its discretion, declines to award costs for jury consultant/mock trial fees (cases regularly proceed to trial without), transcript reading (other counsel could have read the statements), Court Connect (convenient but not necessary to appear virtually), case calendaring (optional use of electronic calendaring program), and legal research fees (which Plaintiff agreed to waive). Accordingly, the Court taxes $15,464 in these claimed costs.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to tax costs is granted in part, denied in part. The Court taxes $20,106.33 in claimed costs.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.