Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2020-01144211, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling
Motion to Tax Costs
Plaintiff Ferideh Roknipour’s (Roknipour) motion to strike or tax costs GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows.
The Court hereby taxes a total amount of $15,625.31 from defendant Estate of Jesse S. Abrams’s (defendant) memorandum of costs, consisting of the following:
• $14,712.50 in expert fees and costs. Only post offer expert fees and costs are recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (section 998). (Code Civ. Proc., § 998, subd. (c)(1).) Defendant did not serve its 998 offer on Rocknipour until 2/18/22 (Dagmy Decl. at Ex. A), and $14,712.50 of the claimed expert fees and costs were incurred prior to that date. (Id. at Ex. E [Invoice Nos. 0115325, 0116156, 0115518, and 10331.12.21].)
• $897.95 in photocopy charges/trial binders. Defendant’s memorandum of costs seeks $1,385.12 for “photocopies of exhibits, trial binders.” (Costs Memo., Item 12; Costs Worksheet, p. 3.) Three subsections of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 (section 1033.5) govern the analysis with respect to photocopies: (1) section 1033.5(a)(13), which provides for the cost of photocopies of exhibits “if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact” (exhibits actually used at trial); (2) section 1033.5(b)(3), which prohibits costs for “photocopying charges, except for exhibits”; and (3) section 1033.5(c), which provides for the cost of photocopies of those exhibits not used at trial in the court’s discretion if they were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation (Segal v. Asics America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651, 657, 667-668). Defendant’s invoices show that some of the $1,285.12 sought here includes photocopy charges for trial binders/other briefing and not just the exhibit binders, and it is uncertain how much of these costs were solely for exhibits versus trial binders/other briefing (such as motions in limine). (See Dagmy Decl. at Ex. G.) Thus, under sections 1033.5(a)(13) and (c), only those charges that appear to have been incurred with respect to the exhibits have been allowed, as this department requires parties to bring copies of all exhibits to court on the first day of trial (when motions in limine are considered), and as all such costs were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and are reasonable in amount. The allowable amount totals $487.17, consisting of the copy provider’s one-time $79.95 service fee for the copying; the $307.22 for color copies; and the $100 charge for the four exhibit binders. (See Dagmy Decl. at Ex. G.) All remaining charges, which total $897.95, are taxed.
• $14.86 in unsubstantiated interpreter fees. The memorandum of costs seeks a total of $1,004.86 in unspecified interpreter fees (see Costs Memo., Item 13); and defendant has submitted invoices attempting to substantiate them in support of its opposition (see Dagmy Decl. at Ex. H). The $495 in fees for the interpreter at Fatemeh Karami’s (Karami) deposition is recoverable (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(3)(B)), and the Court in its discretion will allow the $495 in fees for the interpreter at Karami’s IME, as it was reasonably necessarily to the conduct of the litigation and is reasonable in amount. (Id., § 1033.5, subd. (c).) This comes out to a total of only $990, however, and defendant has requested $1,004.86. As such, the difference of $14.86 between these two amounts is taxed.
All other costs at issue were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and are reasonable in amount. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c).)
As should be obvious from the above, the request for an order striking the memorandum of costs in its entirety is denied. Contrary to Roknipour’s contentions, defendant’s memorandum of costs filed on 5/8/23 is timely. The deadline for a memorandum of costs is triggered by a judgment, and judgment was not entered until 7/6/23. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1); ROA Nos. 230, 235.)
Moving party shall give notice.