Judge Kristin S. Escalante , Case Number: 18STCV05608, Date: 2023-06-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kristin S. Escalante , Case: 18STCV05608, Date: 2023-06-23 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 24 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Submission Instructions.

1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SMCDEPT24@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. You must cc all other parties on the email.

2. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, case name and number, date of hearing and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions

3. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a motion placed off-calendar and parties are ordered to cancel the reservation on CRS.

4. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date. The moving party shall give notice of the final ruling.

5.Tentative rulings are not invitations or opportunities to file further documents relative to the hearing before the Court. Said document(s) will not be considered by the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court has read the moving, opposing and reply papers in the above-captioned motion and announces its tentative rulings in open Court.

The Motion to Tax Costs filed by Plaintiffs Gilbert Wayne Hedgpeth; Raul Caiz, Jr.; and Raul Caiz, Sr. on 05/12/2023 is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

The motion to taxes the court reporter fees is granted with respect to the amount of $4,336.77 in court reporter fees. In all other respects the motion to tax is denied.

Plaintiffs Gilbert Wayne Hedgpeth; Raul Caiz, Jr.; and Raul Caiz, Sr. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) move for an order taxing the costs sought by Defendants the California State Athletic Commission and Andrew Foster (collectively “Defendants”). (Notice of Mtn., at p. 1.) Defendants seek at total of $91,732.03 in costs comprised of (i) $2,770.00 in filing and motion fees, (ii) $76,325.26 in deposition costs, and (iii) 12,636.77 in court reporter fees as established by statute. Plaintiffs move to tax all three categories.

Discussion

Under the law, a verified memorandum of costs is deemed correct. However, a party may contest the costs that a prevailing party seeks. (Code Civ. Proc., §1034 subd. (a).) The challenging party has the burden of demonstrating that those costs are unreasonable or unnecessary. (Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486 (Adams); 612 South LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285 (612 South).) If the opposing party proper objects to the costs, “they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas v. California State Automobile Association (193) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 (Ladas).) To be recoverable, the costs must be “reasonably necessary” to the conduct of litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5 subd. (c).) “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, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 744; see also Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5 subd. (c).) However, items not mentioned in the code of civil procedure and “asserted upon application may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5, subd (c)(4).)

Plaintiffs move to tax the entirety of the Defendants claimed filing and motion fees. They argue the fees are waived under Government Code section 6103 (“Section 6103”) and, thus, Defendants did not pay them. However, while Section 6103 exempts the state from paying filing fees, Government Code section 6103.5 explicitly authorizes the state to seek the fees it would have incurred but for Section 6103’s exemption. (See Gov. Code, §6103.5 [“the clerk entering the judgment shall include as a part of the judgment the amount of the filing fee, and the amount of the fee for the service of process or notices which would have been paid but for Section 6103”]; see also Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 164 [“It is apparent that section 6103.5 considers the filing fees to be an existing debt that simply remains unpaid. Filing fees are therefore costs incurred but not paid, which are recoverable under the general costs statute.”].)

Plaintiffs move to tax the deposition costs by $32,907.00. Plaintiffs argue this portion of the deposition fees are unreasonable because Defendants undertook to depose character witnesses which led to duplicative and needless depositions. Defendants, on the other hand, argue that all the deposition were reasonable and necessary given the allegations of discrimination. Specifically, since the allegations turned on discriminatory referee assignments, Defendants needed to collect testimony regarding the considerably large number of matches the discrimination could cover. Defendants also argue that with the amended pleadings, the theories of the case required more depositions.

There are thirteen depositions which Plaintiffs argue were unreasonable. Plaintiffs have not raised a valid objection beyond a cursory claim that the witnesses were unnecessary and at least one witness during one set of questioning testified Defendant Foster was not racist. Plaintiffs do not go through each deposition to identify why the specific deposition was unnecessary or provide the court with guidance of evaluating why the objection is properly brought as to each deposition. The general conclusion that the testimony was duplicative and would have been subject to a motion in limine is not enough. The “recovery of deposition costs does not depend on whether the deponent ultimately testifies at trial.” (Chabaan v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 57.) The test is whether the deposition was “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.” (Ibid., citing Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).) Assuming arguendo Plaintiffs had validly objected, Defendants, provide justification for each of the depositions taken. That justification and explanation coupled with Plaintiffs’ lack of specificity regarding why the costs are unreasonable results in the court denying the request. The court does not have sufficient evidence before it to conclude that the depositions were unnecessary.

Finally, Plaintiffs move to tax the court reporter fees entirely as Defendants sought and ordered transcripts of the hearings, not the court. Defendant improperly combined the court reporter fees and transcript fees into one category in its memorandum of costs. In opposition, they concede that the transcript fees of $4,336.77 are non-recoverable since the court did not order the transcripts, and, instead, request only the court reporter fees. (Opp., at p.16:12-22.) The parties are correct, that the transcript fees are not recoverable as they were not ordered by the court. (See Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5, subd., (a)(9).) Thus, the court taxes the costs of court reporter fees by $4,336.77.

As to the court reporter fees, “a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 1032.) Under Section 1032 “court reporter fees as established by statute” are recoverable. (Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5, subd. (a)(11).) “As prevailing party, the [Defendant] Department was statutorily entitled to recover court reporter fees.” (Benach v. Cnty. of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 858; See also Gov. Code, § 68086, subd. (c) [“The costs for the services of the official court reporter shall be recoverable as taxable costs by the prevailing party as otherwise provided by law.”].) Accordingly, Defendants are still entitled to the balance of court reporter fees and the court denies the motion to tax those fees.