Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20STCV20770, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 20STCV20770    Hearing Date: January 23, 2025    Dept: 40

20STCV20770 Harriet Fleming, et al v. Tabitha de la Torre, et al. 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS

I.       BACKGROUND

      The first amended complaint alleges individual and derivative claims arising from a dispute over the management of Lucas King, LLC. Plaintiffs allege claims for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, accounting, dissolution and for declaratory relief.

      On August 30, 2024, the Hon. Anne Richardson entered judgment in favor of Defendants after a bench trial, and declared Defendant to be the prevailing party for purposes of costs.

      Defendants filed their Memorandum of Costs on October 25, 2024, claiming total costs of $27,007.58.

II.     ARGUMENTS

      Plaintiffs move to tax Item 12 of the cost memorandum seeking a lump sum of $5,147.09 incurred to prepare models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits. (M.O.C. 10/25/24). Plaintiffs argues the items are not broken down and are excessive. The reasonable cost for reproducing documents by a deposition officer is 10 cents per page. Costs expended for documents not admitted at trial are not permitted. Plaintiffs estimate that only 112 trial exhibits were admitted, consisting of 1,110 pages. At .10 cents per page, total costs should be $333.

      Plaintiffs argue that the cost for law firms to make their documents OCR ready, to organize, and bookmark exhibits is an item of the firm’s overhead and should not be separately charged to clients.

      Defendants argue that costs not specifically allowed may be recovered at the court’s discretion. If items appear proper, the cost memo is prima facie evidence of their propriety. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing that costs are improper. Defendants used a third party vendor to print and compile documents. The court required three sets of exhibits for the judicial assistant, the court, and the witness. Defendants had approximately 200 pages of exhibits totaling roughly 1,620 pages.

      In reply, Plaintiffs argue the cost for copying exceeding 10 cents per page should be taxed. The binders are reusable and should not be recovered as a cost. 

III.    LEGAL STANDARDS

      A prevailing party may recover costs as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032 subd. (b).)

Section 1032 of the Code of Civil Procedure “is the fundamental statutory authority for awarding costs in civil actions.” (Leiper v. Gallegos (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 284, 297.) Section 1033.5 “is a list of what is, and is not, allowable as a cost, [and] similarly is trial-court-oriented, with items exclusively related to trial court proceedings (e.g., references to jury fees, taking depositions, process servers, etc.).” (Stratton v. Beck (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 901, 910.) Costs spent on "[m]odels, the enlargements of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits, and the electronic presentation of exhibits, including costs of rental equipment and electronic formatting, may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact." (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5.)  Items not expressly permitted under section 1033.5 may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5 subd. (c)(4).)

IV.   DISCUSSION

      Contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments, costs for exhibits not used at trial are not expressly prohibited. Rather, the court has discretion to award such costs under subdivision (c)(4). (Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651, 667.) Plaintiffs cite Segal, but misinterprets the case.  Additionally, the prevailing party is not required to attach copies of bills, invoices, statements, or any other such documents. "(Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.) Supporting documentation must be submitted if the costs are at issue. (Id.)  If the charges appear to be proper, the burden falls on the opposing party to show that items were not reasonable or necessary.  (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) The burden of proof shifts once an item is put in issue. (Id.)

      Evidence Code § 1563 cited by Plaintiffs does not apply. It governs reimbursable expenses to a non-party witness in complying with a subpoena. (Evid. Code, § 1563; In re Marriage of Stephens (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 909, 917.)

      Defendants have met their burden of showing that the amount of expenses incurred for Item 12 were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation as they were expended for reproduction, pagination, and preparation of exhibits at the court’s request, making the documents OCR ready, combing exhibits for searching, and technology set up. Defendants also provide 17 pages of invoicing corresponding with the table summarizing the 17 items of expenses incurred by Defendants. (Decl. of Emma Sutherland, Exhibit A.)

V.     CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to tax is DENIED.