Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 1 of 12

1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640
Sacramento, California 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com

5
Attorney for Defendant County of Kern
6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-DLB

12 PlaintitI, DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS
13 vs.

14 COUNTY OF KERN, Hearing Requested

Local Rule 54-292(d)
15 Defendant.

16
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
17 Trial Date: May 14, 2009
I-------------------l
18

19 INTRODUCTION
20 Pursuant to Local Rule 54-292(c), Defendant County of Kern ("County") submits these

21 objections to Plaintiffs Bill of Costs, filed on June 29, 2009. Pursuant to Local Rule 54-292(d),
22 the County requests a hearing.

23 Summary

24 Plaintiffs cost bill is premature because final judgment has not yet been entered. Local

25 Rule 54-292(b); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b). Only partial judgment has been

26 entered. See Document 389, Partial Judgment on Verdicts of Trial Jury. Plaintiffs submission

27 of this cost bill should bar recovery of any additional costs incurred after its submission.
28

·1·

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS

 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 2 of 12

1 The County requests the following expenses be disallowed from Plaintiffs Bill of Costs:

2 $320.00 in witness fees for witnesses who did not appear at trial, $3,559.89 in mileage expenses
3 for witnesses who did not appear at trial, $525.00 in service fees for subpoenas that were not
4 served, $1,590.00 in "rush service" fees for witnesses who did not appear, $125,000.00 in

5 excessive expert witness fees, $16,164.52 in deposition costs for depositions taken without
6 justification or good cause, $1,208.96 in unauthorized DME transcription costs, $3,628.00 in fee

7 for background investigation of witnesses, $23,228.25 in attorney travel and accommodation

8 expenses, $2,495.60 for unauthorized trial transcripts, $247.12 in costs for extra copies of court

9 filings, $31.50 in telephonic appearance costs, $2,051.50 in excessive jury consultant costs,
10 $9,272.38 in unallowable postage, telephone and copying charges, $12.95 for Plaintiff's

11 investigation of himself, and $1,118.19 for medical records copying. These items total
12 $190,453.86 and Plaintiffs Bill of Costs should be reduced by that amount.
13 Defendant's specific objections are set forth below.
14 General Standard for Costs

15 Rule 54 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure authorizes the award of costs. The

16 specific costs which can be awarded are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. §1920 and the amount that can
17 be awarded in reimbursement for witnesses is specified in 28 U.S.C. §1821. Local Rule 54-

18 292(f) lists as taxable items: (a) clerk's fees, (b) service of process fees, (c) court reporter's fees,

19 (d) docket fees, (e) fees for enlargements, exhibits, and photocopies, (h) witness fees, mileage
20 and subsistence, (i) compensation of court-appointed experts, court-appointed interpreters, and

21 others, and (k) other items allowed by any statute or rule or by the Court in the interest of justice.
22 Fees and costs may be recovered only for expenses that were necessary and reasonable to
23 the prosecution of a case. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992); Farmer v. Arabian American

24 Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227 (1964). A prevailing party is not given a blank check to assess the other
25 party whatever costs it wants to collect. Farmer, 379 U.S. at 235. The Court has the power to
26 reduce excessive fees. American Atheists, Inc. v. City ofStarke, 509 F.Supp.2d 1221 (2007 M.D.
27 Fla.).

28 Plaintiff's costs are excessive and are not recoverable.

-2-

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS

 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 3 of 12

1 Witness Fees
2 Witness fees and travel reimbursement are allowable costs under 28 U.S.C. §1920 with
3 the amount of $40 per day set by 28 U.S.C. §1821. It is not necessary that a witness testify in
4 order to be eligible for reimbursement for witness fees and trave!. Gordon v. Castle Oldsmobile
5 & Honda, 157 F.R.D. 438 (1994 N.D. II!.); International Wood Processors v. Power Dry, Inc.,

6 598 F.Supp.299 (1984 D.C. SC). However, witness fees are not recoverable for witnesses who
7 were never called to testify. Linneman Construction, Inc. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities, 504 F.2d
8 1365 (1974 8th Cir.). Witnesses who were not called are not "witnesses." The Court determines
9 the reasonableness of witness fees. Quy v. Air America, Inc., 667 F.2d 1059 (1981 App. D.C.).
10 Plaintiffs cost bill requests witness fees for the following individuals who were not
11 called as witnesses: Linda Wilkinson, Dr. Etesham, Dr. Fahmy, Dr. Naidu, Dr. Leonard Perez,
12 Dr. Baldwin, Dr. Jose Perez, and Dr. Taylor. The County does not even know who many of
13 these "witnesses" are.
14 Defendant requests that the $320 (8 X $40 = $320) in witness fees for those witnesses be
15 stricken.
16 Mileage costs
17 These costs are objectionable on at least two grounds. First, Plaintiff requests
18 reimbursement for mileage costs without indicating whether those amounts have actually been
19 paid. Second, the claimed expenses are not reasonable.
20 Travel expenses are not required to be paid at the time of service of the trial subpoena.
21 28 U.S.C. §1821. There is authority that reimbursement for witness travel is notto be paid until
22 the witness appears. NLRB v. Frazier, 144 F.R.D. 650 (1992 D.C. NJ).
23 Plaintiff claims travel expenses for several witnesses who did not appear and,
24 consequently, incurred no travel expense. Dr. Jose Perez lives in Houston, Texas (Document
25 392-5, page 119). Dr. Perez was not called as a witness and did not appear at tria!' Yet, Plaintiff
26 claims $2,160.22 for mileage of6,001 miles. Plaintiff makes similar claims for Linda Wilkinson
27 ($137.10), Dr. Etesham ($144.36), Dr. Fahmy ($139.52), Dr. Naidu ($213.33), Dr. Leonard
28 Perez ($132.26), Dr. Baldwin ($275.04), Dr. Alkhouri ($74.18), Dr. Taylor ($143.15) and Sandr

-3-

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS

 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 4 of 12

1 Chester ($140.73). Ms. Chester did appear at trial but the County produced her and she made no
2 request for travel reimbursement. Defendant requests that $3,559.89 in travel fees for these
3 individuals be stricken.
4 Service of Process
5 The County objects to the following fees for service of process:
6 1. Non-service. Document 392-3, pages 2-3, claims reimbursement for 21 trial

7 subpoenas at $25 each. Those are all charges for the service of trial subpoenas for which
8 Plaintiff changed his mind and canceled the service assignment before the process server
9 attempted service. The County should not have to pay charges incurred by Plaintiff for service
10 that was not effected. $525 should be stricken from Plaintiffs cost bill.
11 2. Rush Fees. Invoices from Plaintiffs process server are reproduced in Document 392-
12 5, pages 87-125. "Rush fees" were billed for service to the following individuals:
13 a. Dr. Etesham, served on 5/3/2009 but never called as a witness
14 b. Dr. Fahmy, served on 5/4/2009 but never called as a witness
15 c. Yolanda Figueroa, served on 5/3/2009 but offered to be produced by County
16 d. Dr. Hoang, never served and never called as a witness
17 e. Ana Moreno, never served and never called as a witness
18 f. Dr. Leonard Perez, served on 4/30/2009 but never called as a witness
19 g. Dr. Sproul, never served and never called as a witness
20 h. Linda Wilkinson, served on 4/29/2009 but never called as a witness
21 i. Dr. Naidu, served on 4/29/2009 but never called as a witness
22 j. Dr. Jose Perez, served on 5/512009 but never called as a witness
23 k. Gilbert Martinez, never served and never called as a witness
24 I. Dr. Taylor, served on 5116/2009 but never called as a witness
25 There is no basis for collecting "rush" service of process fees for witnesses who were
26 never called. Defendant requests that these "rush charges," totaling $1,590.00, be stricken from
27 Plaintiffs costs because they are ffi1 unnecessary expense, either because the witness was never
28 called at trial or because the trial subpoena was served in sufficient time for the witness to

-4-

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS

 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 5 of 12

1 appear, without a rush order being put on the subpoena.

2 Expert Witness Fees

3 Plaintiff requests $132,182.20 in fees for his 4 expert witnesses. The breakdown between
4 the four experts is as follows:

5 1. Lawrence Weiss billed 100 hours for his expert report, trial preparation and trial time.

6 His total billing was $32,213.50. His invoices are at Document 392-4, pages 70-73.

7 2. Regina Levison billed for her husband Michael Levison's time, in addition to her own,

8 even though he is not an expert witness in this case. Her total billing was $30,654.85 for

9 approximately 67.50 hours, including her husband's time of$6,093.76. Her invoices are at
10 Document 392-4, pages 27-35.

11 3. Stephanie Rizzardi's total billing was $15,432.50. Her total hours are approximately
12 64Yz; her invoices are at Document 392-4, pages 61-69.
13 4. Dr. Reading's total billing was for $53,881.35. He does not provide any indication of
14 the number of hours he worked or his rate per hour. His records are at Document 392-4, pages
15 37-60. Services listed on his invoices include "deposition preparation," "court preparation" and
16 "records review".
17 In considering costs of this type, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a trial court "is
18 bound by the limit of[28 U.S.C.] 1821(b), absent contract or explicit statutory authority to the

19 contrary." Crawford Fitting Co. v. JT Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 439 (1987).
20 The majority of federal courts interpreting the provision for witness fees in 28 U.S.C.

21 §1920 have found that recovery of expert witness fees is limited to the statutory costs specified
22 in 28 U.S.C. §1821 ($40 per day of testimony plus mileage and subsistence). Murphy v.
23 International Union ofOperating Eng'rs, LocalI8, 774 F.2d 114,134 (6th Cir. 1985). The
24 Murphy court surveyed the caselaw in other circuits and it found that, even when a court allows
25 an award of expert fees, the recovery is restricted to that testimony that was "crucial to the
26 resolution of the case." Id. citing Paschall v. Kansas City Star Co., 695 F.2d 322, 338 (1982 8th

27 Cir.).

28 The trial court has discretion in considering an award of costs for expert witness fees.

-5-

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS

 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 6 of 12

1 Chaparral Resources, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 849 F.2d 1286, 1292 (1988 10th Circuit Colo).
2 Whether Plaintiff is reimbursed for his expert witnesses' trial time at $40 per day plus
3 travel, or at their hourly rate for the time they actually spent in trial, his authorized reimbursable
4 expert witness expense are a small fraction of what he had requested. The authorized fees range
5 from a low of $160, plus travel, per expert pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1821, to a high of about
6 $2,000 each, depending on the expert's hourly rate and time in trial.
7 Defendant requests that the Court reduce Plaintiff s claimed costs for expert witnesses by
8 $125,000.00.

9 Deposition Costs

10 When a court considers what deposition costs were necessary, it must consider what was
11 necessary at the time of the taking of the depositions, not what was necessary at the time of trial.
12 George R. Hall, Inc. v. Superior Trucking Co., 532 F.Supp.985 (1982 N.D. Ga.); Alonso v.
13 Union Oil Co., 71 F.R.D. 523 (1976 S.D. NY). Even with this additional leeway, Defendant
14 believes many of Plaintiffs depositions costs were unnecessary and should not be reimbursed.
15 Plaintiff took depositions of 40 witnesses, well in excess of the number of depositions allowed
16 by law. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i). Plaintifflists his deposition
17 costs in Document 392-3, pages 3-5 of 13. Defendant objects to the following deposition costs:
18 1. Patricia Perez: Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the grounds that
19 there was no reasonable basis to depose Ms. Perez. She is a clerical employee with no
20 management responsibilities. All her testimony was duplicative of the testimony of Steve
21 O'Connor and Renita Nunn. Plaintiff commenced her deposition, unilaterally adjourned it over
22 Defendant's objection, obtained an order from Magistrate Goldner that the deposition could be
23 resumed and then never completed it. The deposition was not reasonably calculated to lead to
24 the discovery of admissible evidence, did not lead to any admissible evidence and Ms. Perez was
25 not called as a witness. This deposition cost is $529.40.
26 2. Dr. Savita Shertukde. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the grounds
27 that there was no reasonable basis to depose Dr. Shertukde. Her deposition testimony was
28 duplicative of the testimony of Dr. Dutt. Her deposition was not reasonably calculated to lead to

-6-

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS

 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 7 of 12

1 the discovery of admissible evidence, did not lead to any admissible evidence and she was not
2 called as a witness. Her deposition cost was $1,794.56.
3 3. Dr. Marvin Kolb. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on grounds that
4 there was no reasonable basis to depose Dr. Kolb. His deposition was not reasonably calculated
5 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, did not lead to any admissible evidence and he
6 was not called as a witness. Plaintiff unilaterally adjourned Dr. Kolb's deposition over
7 Defendant's objection and never completed it. The cost ofthis deposition was $1,054.60.
8 4. Dr. Charles Wrobel. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the grounds
9 that there was no reasonable basis to depose Dr. Wrobel. Plaintiff deposed Dr. Wrobel in the
10 context of Plaintiff s whistleblowing claims but there was no legal basis for those claims because
11 the statute in effect at the time did not recognize the claims Plaintiff had filed. Plaintiffs
12 deposition of Dr. Wrobel was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
13 evidence, did not lead to any admissible evidence and he was not called as a witness. The cost 0
14 this deposition was $249.60.
15 5. Dr. Naderi. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the grounds that there
16 was no reasonable basis to depose Dr. Naderi. Plaintiff deposed Dr. Naderi in the context of
17 Plaintiffs FMLA and CFRA claims because Dr. Naderi had, once upon a time, taken time away
18 from Kern Medical Center for a personal emergency. However, Dr. Naderi was not an employee
19 ofthe County at the time, so he was not covered by either FMLA or CFRA. Discovery other
20 than a deposition would have uncovered this basic fact. Plaintiffs deposition of Dr. Naderi was
21 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, did not lead to any
22 admissible evidence and he was not called as a witness. This deposition cost was $843.30.
23 6. Dr. Patel. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the grounds that there
24 was no reasonable basis to depose Dr. Patel. His deposition was redundant and unnecessary.
25 Everything Plaintiff elicited from Dr. Patel in his deposition testimony was independently
26 available from other deponents and from documents that had been previously produced.
27 Plaintiffs deposition of Dr. Patel was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
28 admissible evidence, did not lead to any admissible evidence and he was not called as a witness.

·7·

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS

 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 8 of 12

1 The cost of this deposition was $545.90.

2 7. Dr. Taylor. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the grounds that there
3 was no reasonable basis to depose Dr. Taylor. Everything Plaintiff elicited from Dr. Taylor in
4 his deposition testimony was independently elicited from other deponents and from documents
5 that had been previously produced. Dr. Taylor's deposition was redundant and unnecessary. His
6 deposition was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, did not
7 lead to any admissible evidence and he was not called as a witness. His two depositions cost
8 $1,230.10.
9 8. Tracy Lindsey. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the grounds that
10 there was no reasonable basis to depose Ms. Lindsey. Her deposition was not reasonably
11 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, did not lead to any admissible
12 evidence and she was not called as a witness. The cost of this deposition was $531.80.
13 9. Ms. Lopez. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the grounds that there
14 was no reasonable basis to depose Ms. Lopez. Her deposition was not reasonably calculated to
15 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, did not lead to any admissible evidence and she
16 was not called as a witness. This deposition cost was $262.60.
17 10. Dr. George A1khouri. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the
18 grounds that there was no reasonable basis to depose Dr. Alkhouri. His deposition was not
19 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and did not lead to any
20 admissible evidence. The deposition testimony Plaintiff read at trial was not relevant to any
21 Issue. This deposition cost was $665.00.
22 11. Gilbert Martinez. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the grounds
23 that there was no reasonable basis to depose Mr. Martinez. Plaintiff deposed Mr. Martinez in
24 support of Plaintiff s whistleblowing claims but, as there was no legal basis for those claims, this
25 deposition was unnecessary. His deposition was not reasonably calculated to lead to the
26 discovery of admissible evidence, did not lead to any admissible evidence and he was not called
27 as a witness. The cost of this deposition was $741.30.
28 12. Dr. Royce Johnson. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the grounds

·8·

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS

 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 9 of 12

1 that there was no reasonable basis to depose Dr. Johnson. Plaintiff did not establish, at the
2 deposition or at any other time, that Dr. Jolmson was a comparator to Plaintiff on any claim. His
3 deposition was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, did not
4 lead to any admissible evidence and he was not called as a witness. The cost of Dr. Johnson's
5 two depositions was $2,637.16.
6 13. Dr. Maureen Martin. Defendant objects to the costs of this deposition on the grounds
7 that there was no reasonable basis to depose Dr. Martin. Her deposition was not reasonably
8 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and did not lead to any admissible
9 evidence. The deposition testimony Plaintiff read at trial was not relevant to any issue. The cost
10 of these two depositions was $1,461.20.
11 14. Unknown. Plaintiff includes a deposition cost of $3,618.00 on page 3 of 13 in
12 Document 392-3, third line from the bottom, that neither identifies the deponent nor provides any
13 supporting documentation for the cost. It is Plaintiff s burden to prove his costs and this item
14 should be stricken.
15 The costs claimed for these depositions total $16,164.52
16 DME Tape Transcription Costs
17 On page 4 of 13 of Document 392-3, Plaintiff has listed the "costs" for transcribing
18 Plaintiffs tape recordings of the three DME sessions performed by defense expert, Dr. Burchulc
19 The tape recordings were unconventional and Dr. Burchulc testified they interfered with his
20 interview of Plaintiff. The recordings were prepared by Plaintiff over Defendant's objection.
21 Defendant never received a copy of these transcripts. Plaintiff has made no showing that tape
22 recording the DME sessions was either reasonable or necessary and has not established why the
23 recordings were transcribed. The transcriptions were never produced to Defendant. They were
24 not used at trial and Plaintiff has made no showing they were ever used for anything. The costs
25 of these three transcripts are $385.96, $618.08, and $204.92, totaling $1,208.96.
26 Other Costs
27 Investigation expenses in preparing a case for trial are not allowable expenses under 28
28 U.S.C. §1920. Plaintiffs background investigations of potential witnesses are not recoverable.

-9-

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS

 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 10 of 12

1 This expense is described in Item #12 (Document 392-2, pg. 8) but no amount is given.
2 Defendant assumes invoices in Document 392-5, pages 29-39, from Richard Sheldon Barr
3 Investigations relate to this expense. The invoices total $3,628.00 and Defendant requests this
4 amount be stricken from Plaintiffs cost bill.
5 Attorney travel expenses are generally not allowed. Wahl v. Carrier Mfg. Co., 511 F.2d
6 209 (1975 7th Cir. Ind.); Harkins v, Riverboat Svcs., 286 F.Supp.2d 976 (2003 N.D. IlL). Item
7 #11 (Document 392-2, page 7) states that hotel room charges of$21,121.65 and airfare costs of
8 $2,106.60 were "necessary because neither Plaintiff nor I were able to secure local counsel to
9 prosecute this action." There is no authority to support recovery of these costs, which total
10 $23,228.25, and they should be stricken from the cost bill.
II Transcripts of court proceedings that were not ordered by the court are not allowable
12 expenses under 28 U.S.C. §1920. See also Farmer, supra, 379 U.S. at 233-234. Document 392-
13 3 contains three such expenses on page 4 of 13 and page 5 of 13. There are two entries on page
14 4, for $683.25 and $71.40, for transcripts of court proceedings before Magistrate Goldner of a
15 Motion to Compel responses to Request for Production of Docwnents. On page 5 is an expense
16 of$I,740.95 for transcripts of the trial testimony of the Plaintiff, Dr. Harris and Peter Bryan.
17 Defendant requests that these expenses, totaling $2,495.60, be disallowed.
18 There is no authority for the recovery of fees for documents electronically filed with the
19 court. The Court's e-mail notification system provides a link through which all filed documents
20 can be printed for free. Plaintiff apparently re-printed some documents because there are five
21 PACER charges totaling $247.12 (Document 392-3, page 6 of 13, $35.60; page 7 of 13, $98.24
22 and $45.04; page 8 of 13, $32.64 and $35.60). There is no authority for collecting these charges
23 in a cost bill and Defendant requests the sum of $247.12 be stricken.
24 Plaintiff also requests that he be reimbursed for the cost of appearing at a court
25 proceeding by telephone. There is no authority for recovering this cost. Defendant requests that
26 the $31.50 cost be stricken.
27 Costs for the investigation of jurors are not allowable expenses under 28 U.S.C. §1920.
28 Plaintiffs jury consultant expense is described in Item #13 of Document 392-2, page 8. The

·10·

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS

 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 11 of 12

1 expense is $12,252.07. Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why his jury consultant's post-trial

2 work was either reasonable or necessary. (Document 392-5, page 22 for $690.00). Similarly, he

3 offers no explanation for the reasonableness of the jury consultant's work in 2006 - which was a

4 year before the complaint was filed. (Document 392-5, page 24 for $1,361.50). Defendant

5 requests that these expenses, totaling $2,051.50, not be allowed.

6 Postage, telephone, and photocopying charges, except for trial exhibits, are not allowable

7 expenses under 28 U.S.C. §1920. Whereas Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs for preparing
8 some trial exhibits, his claim of$I,030.00 (Document 392-5, page 42) for specialty drafting of

9 discovery responses for trial is not authorized. In addition, there is no authority for his item #9

10 (Document 392-2, page 7) in the amount of $8,242.38 for copying other documents. Defendant
11 requests that these two costs, totaling $9,272.38, be disallowed.
12 Plaintiff seeks recovery of the cost of a background check he conducted on himself in the
13 amount of $12.95. (Document 392-3, page 8 of 13, third item from top, dated 6/19/2006). There
14 is no authority for this item and it should be stricken.
15 Plaintiff requests that he be reimbursed for the cost of reproducing copies of his medical
16 records from his various medical providers. This expense is distinct from the cost of producing
17 those records as exhibits and is not an allowable expense. This expense is listed as seven
18 different line items in Document 392-3, pages 6-7 of 13, and totals $1,118.19. It should be
19 stricken.
20 Summary
21 In summary, the County requests that the following items be stricken from Plaintiffs Bill
22 of Costs:
23 Witness fees for witnesses who did not appear $320.00
24 Mileage expenses for witnesses who did not appear 3,559.89
25 Service fees for subpoenas that were not served 525.00
26 "Rush service" fees for witnesses who did not appear 1,590.00
27 Excess expert witness fees 125,000.00
28 Depositions taken without justification or good cause 16,164.52

-11-

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS

 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 394 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 12 of 12

1 Unauthorized DME transcription costs 1,208.96

2 Background investigations of witnesses 3,628.00
3 Attorney travel and accommodation expenses 23,228.25
4 Unauthorized trial transcripts 2,495.60

5 Extra copies of Court files 247.12

6 Telephone appearance fee for Plaintiff's counsel 31.50

7 Pre-filing and post-trial consultations with jury consultant 2,051.50

8 Misc. postage, telephone and photocopy charges 9,272.38
9 Plaintiff's self-investigation fee 12.95
10 Cost of photocopying Plaintiff's misc. medical records 1,118.19
11
12 Total disputed costs $190,453.86
13

14
15 Respectfully submitted,

16 Dated: July 14, 2009 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

17

18 By: lsi Mark A. Wasser

Mark A. Wasser
19 Attorney for Defendant, County of Kern
20

21

22
23
24

25
26
27

28

-12-

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS