Opinion
2:13-cv-00934-JAM-DB
10-19-2021
CONSERVATION CONGRESS and CITIZENS FOR BETTER FORESTRY, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, and UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S BILL OF COSTS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S BILL OF COSTS
JOHN MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on United States Forest Service's (“Defendant”) bill of costs. See Def.'s Bill of Costs (“Bill”), ECF No. 93. Conservation Congress (“Plaintiff”) objects to the bill. See Objections, ECF No. 94. Defendant replied. See Reply, ECF No. 103. For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections to Defendant's bill of costs and grants Defendant's bill of costs.
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled for September 14, 2021.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2021, this Court granted summary judgment for the Defendant and denied summary judgment for the Plaintiff. See Judgment, ECF No. 92. Defendant then submitted its bill of costs on May 28, 2021, requesting $16,614.05. Bill at 1. This amount represents the costs for scanning, hyperlinking, Bates-stamping, and electronically producing the administrative record, which totaled 19, 193 pages. See Decl. of Jeffery Desalles, ECF No. 93-1. Plaintiff filed objections to the bill on June 4, 2021. See Objections.
II. OPINION
A. Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), “costs-other than attorney's fees-should be allowed to the prevailing party” unless “a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). This rule creates a presumption that costs will be taxed against the losing party, but “vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs” if the losing party shows why costs should not be awarded. Ass'n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc).
A court may tax costs listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (“§ 1920”), including at § 1920(4): “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” The “costs of compiling the administrative record [] fall within the scope of § 1920(4).” Conservation Cong. v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 2:12-cv-02800-TLN-CKD, 2014 WL 6612088 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2014).
If the court declines to award costs, it must “specify reasons” for denying costs. Subscription Television, Inc. v. Southern Cal. Theater Owners Ass'n, 576 F.2d 230, 234 (9th Cir. 1978). However, “[a court] need not specify reasons for its decision to abide by the presumption and tax costs to the losing party. Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Ass'n of Mexican-Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 592-93). The objecting party bears the burden of presenting reasons “sufficiently persuasive to overcome the presumption in favor of an award.” In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 914, 932 (9th Cir. 2015).
B. Analysis
Plaintiff argues that costs should not be taxed for reasons previously given by the Ninth Circuit: “(1) the substantial public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff's limited financial resources, and (5) the economic disparity between the parties.” Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247-48 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Plaintiff argues all five reasons are present in this case. Objection at 2. Defendant disputes every reason. Reply at 3-4.
Reviewing the record, the Court finds that the first and second reasons weigh in favor of the Defendant, because, as this Court previously noted, “the central issues in this case-the Government's review and approval of a timber project and the impact of the project on the Northern Spotted Owl-are not new.” Conservation Cong. V. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 2:12-cv-02800-TLN-CKD, 2014 WL 6612088 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2014). The fourth and fifth reasons favor Plaintiff, because it has demonstrated financial hardship and the stark economic disparity between itself, a non-profit, and Defendant, a government entity. The third reason does not weigh in favor of either party, because it is unclear if taxing costs would chill the Plaintiff from future suits. Given that neither party clearly prevails when the above five factors are considered by the Court and the presumption in favor of the prevailing party, the Court grants costs for the Defendant.
In the event costs are taxed, Plaintiff asked that the Court reduce the amount taxed to $300.00. Pl's Objection at 8. The Court declines. Defendant's costs are facially reasonable compared to costs granted in the Ninth Circuit for compiling the administrative record. See Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 2:04-cv-00956-JAM-JFM, 2013 WL 6185240, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov.26, 2013) (awarding $19,851.60); Friends of Tahoe Forest Access v. U.S. Dep't of Agric, No. 12-cv-01876-JAM-CKD, 2014 WL 1575622, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr.17, 2014) (awarding $14,875.23). As the objecting party, Plaintiff failed to present sufficiently persuasive arguments why costs should be denied or reduced. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections are overruled.
III. ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections and GRANTS Defendant's costs. Total costs awarded are $16,614.05.
IT IS SO ORDERED.