Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 19STCV27545, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27545    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 January 19, 2024 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  19STCV27545

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Mihwa Kim, et al. v. Prime Pan-Pacific Co., et al.

¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants, Prime Pan-Pacific Co. ¿ 

¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiffs, Mihwa Kim, Kwangwoo Kim, and Kwang Hee Kim¿¿ 

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Tax Costs

¿ 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) DENIED, subject to clarification at oral argument as to what IS and what IS NOT included in Cost Bill item 11 (Court reporter fees of $35,283.00).  GRANTED as to item 16 (Other in the amount of $6,223.81) until and unless plaintiffs’ counsel can direct the Court to the specific items included in the over 80-page attachment to the Cost Bill that plaintiffs claim should be awarded

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On January 8, 2024, this Court continued the hearing on this motion to allow declarations to be filed on behalf of defense counsel and to unbundle the court reporter charges and the other charges that made it difficult for the Court to simply grant or deny specific line items.  On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a supplemental briefing. On January 17, 2024, Defendant Prime filed a supplemental declaration.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿ 

The supplemental briefs and declarations provide greater clarity for the Court.  Plaintiffs attached the declaration of Matthew Spievak, Vice president of Operations for California for Veritext, the company which provided court report services for the trial. Spievak notes that: “[t]he additional in-person attendance fee [of $500 per day during the trial] has arisen due to the extreme shortage of court reporters in California. The reporters know they are in high demand; so they bid up the prices of jobs and demand these extra fees. They are independent contractors, and if [Veritext] want[s] to provide coverage to [Veritext’s] clients, [Veritext has] to pay their fees and charge[Veritext’s] clients appropriately. [Spievak] believe[s] that the court system is down at least 1,300 official reporters. [Veritext has] covered over 2,700 in-person fee[s] in order to get the jobs covered. Thus, [Veritext] believe[s] the fees are reasonably and necessary given the shortage.” (Declaration of Matthew Spievak (“Spievak Decl.”), ¶ 7.)

Plaintiffs note that section 1033.5(c)(2) states that allowable costs must “be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” Based on this, Plaintiffs argue that because the “in-person coverage fee” is in fact due to a shortage of court reporters, Plaintiffs are required to pay this cost to Veritext else they would not have had an in-person court reporter for the trial.

In Defendant Prime’s supplemental declaration, they argue that the award of $6,500 for “in person coverage fees” is improper as it is expected that the Court Reporter for a Jury Trial would appear in person. 13 days at $500 per day equals the $6,500 amount.  Defendant Prime argues that there is no basis for an additional charge for the use of an “in person” court reporter.

This Court notes that based on the declaration of Matthew Spievak, the labeling of the charge “in-person coverage” does not properly describe what the charge is actually for. It appears that it is a euphemism to address the laws of supply and demand, i.e., a charge that is made to compensate the court reporter’s monetary demands in a climate where their services are in higher demand. Based on this, the Court now denies the Motion to Tax Costs as to the “in-person coverage” fee.  Further, based on Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief and declaration, Plaintiffs are not claiming any amount in their cost bill for the “Litigation Package and Hosting and Delivery of Encrypted Files.”   Further, Plaintiff is not claiming in their cost bill the “Priority request and rough draft charges.” 

Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief in support of its cost bill finally attached a summary of the court reporter services broken down by type of service and amount per day, in a single chart.  The Realtime services which varied in amount I each day appear per that summary to total $5,893.40, the $1,750 per day court reporter fee added up to $22,750, plus the $500 per day in-person coverage fee, which when adding in daily parking billed to plaintiffs for the court reporter totaled out to $35,260.40, the amount claimed on item 11 of the Cost Bill.  In the Court’s view, if the daily fee had been $1,750 plus $500 or $2,250 per day, there would have been no confusion by defense counsel nor by the Court.  But Veritext unbundled those amounts in tehri bill, per the Spievak declaration. 

No such summary helps the Court address the over $6,000 in “Other” charges so the Court can assess what is disallowable and what is allowable.  Oral argument and perhaps a still further hearing might be needed.