United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
OPINION AND ORDER
AIKEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
as prevailing parties, have filed a Bill of Costs (doc.
116) with this Court following entry of the
Ninth Circuit's Mandate (doc. 115) affirming the
Court's Judgement (doc. 108) dismissing this action. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS defendants'
costs in part in the amount of $2, 302.10.
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that, "[u]nless a
federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides
otherwise, costs-other than attorney's fees- should be
allowed to the prevailing party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d).
"Costs" taxable under Rule 54(d) "are limited
to those set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and
1821." Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v.
Entm't Distrib., 429 F, 3d 869, 885 (9th Cir. 2005),
abrogated on other grounds by Rimini Street, Inc. v.
Oracle USA, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 873 (2019)
(citing Crawford Fitting Co. u. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.,
482 U.S. 437, 445 (1987)). 28 U.S.C. § 1920, provides
that the court may tax as costs:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies
of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained
for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of
interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of
special interpretation services under section 1828 of this
28 U.S.C. § 1920.
creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the
prevailing party. See e.g., Ass'n of Mex.-Am.
Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 592-93 (9th Cir.
2000). "[I]f a district court wishes to depart from that
presumption, it must explain why so that the appellate court
will be able to determine whether or not the trial court
abused its discretion, .. [and] explain why a case is not
ordinary." Save Our Valley v. Sound
Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation
marks and citation omitted). When exercising its discretion
in to deny costs, courts may consider the following factors:
(1) whether the suit was brought in the public interest, (2)
the limited financial resources of the losing party, (3)
whether the suit was brought in good faith and whether the
claims had merit, and (4) the chilling effect that imposing
costs may have on future litigants. Ass'n of Mex.-Am.
Educators, 231 F.3d at 591-593.
district court, however, "needs no affirmatively
expressed reason to tax costs. Rather, it need only conclude
that the reasons advanced by the party bearing the
burden--the losing party-are not sufficiently persuasive to
overcome the presumption." Id. at 946. Courts
are free to construe the meaning and scope of the items
enumerated as taxable costs in 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Lab., Inc., 914 F.2d
175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990). The district court retains broad
discretion to decide how much to award, if anything.
Padgett v. Loventhal,706 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir.
2013). Ultimately, it is "incumbent upon the ...