1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 GORDON R. OSBORN, CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00842-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION RE: TAXATION OF COSTS 13 v. (Doc. 56) 14 THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Background 19 Pending before the Court is the motion (Doc. 56) by Plaintiff Gordon R. Osborn (“Plaintiff”) to 20 review the Clerk of the Court’s taxation of costs in favor of the prevailing party in this action, Defendant 21 The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (“Defendant”).1 (Docs. 29-31). 22 On March 8, 2024, this Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and entered 23 judgment in Defendant’s favor. (Docs. 43, 44). On March 22, 2024, Defendant submitted a bill of 24 costs. (Doc. 49). Following Plaintiff’s filing of objections (Doc. 51), Defendant filed a notice of errata 25 in connection with its application for taxation of costs. (Docs. 52, 53). In a supporting declaration by 26

27 1 On June 10, 2021, following the parties’ expression of consent to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge, this action was reassigned to the assigned magistrate judge for all purposes 28 pursuant to

(c)(1). (Doc. 7). 1 attorney Kyle Anne Piasecki, Defendant acknowledged caselaw from this Court permitting recovery of 2 costs for both the stenographic transcript and a video copy of a deposition to the extent such costs are 3 “reasonably necessary for the litigation.” (Doc. 53 ¶ 4) (citing Yeager v. Bowlin, No. CIV 2:08-102 4 WBSJFM,

, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2010)). In her declaration, counsel for 5 Defendant set forth grounds for which she believed recovery of both types of deposition costs were 6 reasonably necessary.

. 7 Following review of the parties’ submissions, on April 29, 2024, the Court entered a minute 8 order documenting its “find[ing] that the costs [identified in Defendant’s submission] are appropriately 9 authenticated and supported in the total amount of $11,605.25.” (Doc. 54). The Court further found 10 “that Defendant has sufficiently supported its request to recover fees associated with stenographic and 11 videography expenses as reasonable and necessary.”

(citing cases). In particular, Defendant’s 12 submissions reflected that Defendant obtained both the stenographic copy and videos of taped 13 depositions for eight witnesses, including that of Plaintiff, several medical professionals and other 14 witnesses. (Doc. 49 at 3; Doc. 52-1 at 3; Doc. 53). 15 Discussion 16 In its motion, Plaintiff requests that the taxation of costs be reduced by $4,420.25, to a total 17 $7,185.00, on the grounds that Defendant failed to establish its videography costs were “necessarily 18 incurred.” (Doc. 56 at 2). But this Court already considered Defendant’s submissions in support of its 19 bill of costs and concluded that they sufficiently demonstrated both stenographic and video costs 20 associated with the eight depositions were reasonably necessary. (Doc. 54.). What is more, the Court 21 acknowledged conflicting caselaw on the matter, including by citing a decision of this Court declining to 22 tax the costs of both stenography and videography for the same deposition.

(citing Gregorie v. 23 Alpine Meadows Ski Corp., No. CIV. S-08-259 LKK/DAD,

, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 24 2011)). Nevertheless, the Court concluded then – and reaffirms its conclusion now – that Defendant has 25 met its burden of demonstrating the dual costs were reasonably necessary by reference to, among other 26 things, the out-of-state residency of witnesses (implicating possible remote appearances for trial) and 27 that some witnesses were beyond the Court’s subpoena power (implicating possible need to rely on the 28 video depositions at trial), the likelihood of trial proceeding, and the inherent benefits of videography, 1 || including through impeachment. The Court has considered Plaintiffs arguments (Docs. 56, 58) and 2 || finds they do not warrant reversal of the Court’s earlier order that costs properly are taxed in the total 3 || amount of $11,605.25. 4 Conclusion and Order 5 For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion regarding taxation of costs (Doc. 56) is 6 || DENIED. 7 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 13, 2024 | Word bo 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28