Motion by Plaintiffs Lisa Williams, Shawn Williams, Steven Eckert, Enrique Ceniceros, Anthony Caito, Joseph Repetti and Shapell Industries, Inc. to Strike Costs and Fees or, in the alternative, Tax Costs and Fees of Metropolitan Water District:
1. (a) Responding defendant The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) objection to the timeliness of this Cost Memo challenge is itself an untimely request for reconsideration of the 4/15/16 ruling of this court granting plaintiffs Lisa Williams, Shawn Williams, Anthony Caito, Enrique Ceniceros, Steven Eckert, and Joseph Repetti the opportunity to bring this motion to strike or tax costs.
That objection by MWD is overruled, and the court denies reconsideration relief requested now by MWD for failure to comply with C.C.P.? ? 1008.
What did ?get through? the Callahan firm ?server? at a particular point in time has not been conclusively established (then or now).
(b) Notably, the 4/15/16 ruling did not extend to Shapell Industries, Inc., (Shapell) (see 4/15/16 Minute Order of the court), where it was pointed out in opposition to that prior 473 motion, that Shapell had never sought to tax the costs of any defendant.
(c) In similar fashion, the rulings below apply only to the parties who obtained 473 relief on 4/15/16 (i.e. not to Shapell, or the plaintiffs represented by the Russo firm).? Any order seeking to address cost awards with respect to those other plaintiffs, exceeds the reach of the motion set for hearing on this date (i.e. Opposition request that the court vacate a prior ruling, or enter new and different costs awards as to other plaintiffs, is denied).? The 12/21/15 and 2/2/16 Minute Orders of the court in this matter accurately report this court?s prior rulings on related motion to tax cost challenges.? Therefore, Opposition request that the court ?correct clerical error? in those prior rulings, pursuant to this court?s inherent powers is denied.
(d) Notably, this cost challenge is slightly different from the 12/18/15 challenge to co-defendant IRWD?s Cost Memo.? There, the shared power point costs and cost of trial exhibit binders were at issue , but ?transcript charges? for transcripts not ordered by the court were alsoat issue, and attorney service and messenger/courier charges were alsoat issue, and subpoena-related costs were also at issue (latter arguments are presented, here).
The 1/29/16 challenge to co-defendant MNWD?s Cost Memo presents nearly identical arguments to Item 1, Item 11, and Item 13 topics ? and the outcome, here does not vary regarding? those topics.
(e) This court?s ruling is further described, below (i.e. granting this motion, in part).
?
Item 1 ? The ?filing and motion fees? figure ($938.50) reflects One Legal ?e-filing? charges, urged to be recoverable since the court now requires ?e-filing,? however, those e-filing charges are not ?filing fees? paid to the Court, and are more akin to courier and messenger fees in pre-electronic days, which must be denied in the absence of showing that they were reasonable and necessary pursuant to C.C.P.? ? 1033.5 (c) (2), and not merely incurred for the convenience of the party (also, see broad language of Government Code ? 6103 exempting public agencies from any fee for filing in any court).? Opposition reference to non-binding Trial Court decisions of other courts, is not persuasive.
Item 4 – Responding papers fail to explain how the records obtained from third-party subpoenas were ?reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation? ? or how they were used during the 2-day trial of this matter.? In other words, Opposition reference to subpoena of ?association records? as to causation issue, do not adequately explain the ?reasonableness or necessity? of the subject subpoenas.? See CCP ? 1033.5 (a) (3) &(c) (2) & (4).
?
Item 11 ? Trial exhibit preparation and copying charges were previously addressed in related motion to tax costs of co-defendant MNWD, where ?equal cost sharing? of those costs was described, as between the 3 water district defendants, and the court concluded that a 1/3 ?share? of a reduced amount, was appropriate as to MNWD.? That same calculation is applied here as to MWD ? resulting in a figure of $436.25 allowed MWD re this category ($900 divided by 3 = $300 + $136.25 for 1/3 of exhibit tabs/binder expense = $436.25).
See 2/2/16 Minute Order of the court and C.C.P.? ? 1033.5 (a) (13) & (14) & (c) (2), and Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn (1993) 19 Cal App 4th 761, 775, and El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat & Locker Service, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal App 4th 612, 618, and County of Riverside v. City of Murrieta (1998) 65 Cal App 4th 616, 629 ? i.e. responding defendant MWD has not met its burden, here, to demonstrate that thebalance of the $1,459.78 amount sought was ?reasonable?, or related to ?reasonable and necessary? duplication of exhibits admitted at Trial, that was reasonably helpful to aiding the trier-of-fact.
?
Item 13 ? The ?other? figure of $31,277.24 is not recoverable (consistent with this court?s rulings on 12/21/15 and 2/2/16), as costs for power point, trial presentation, equipment rental and operator, arenot recoverable under CCP ? 1033.5, and did not reasonably assist the trier-of-fact, herein, and, instead, were ?merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation?- see Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn (1993) 19 Cal App 4th 761, 775, and CCP ? 1033.5 (c) (2), and Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal App 4th 1014, 1039, andSeever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal App 4th 1550, 1558-1560 ? also see comments in the 12/21/15 and 2/2/16 Minute Orders of the court in that regard.? Opposition quotation of court comments, out-of-context, do not persuade this court otherwise (or address previous observation that said power point essentially repeated the bullet points of the defendants? Trial Brief).? Furthermore, Opposition suggestion that ?foam boards? would have been more expensive and cumbersome, misses the point (comparison is not to foam boards ? as a few pages of paper, repeating Trial Brief bullet points, were all that was reasonable or necessary re this 2-day bench trial).
?
- In sum, therefore, the tentative ruling here is to grant this challenge in its entirety, as to Item 1 costs, Item 4 costs, and Item 13 costs, claimed in the MWD Cost Memo filed on 11/5/15 ? while reducing theItem 11 figure, to $436.25 allowed to prevailing defendant MWD, only, as against these moving plaintiffs Lisa Williams, Shawn Williams, Anthony Caito, Enrique Ceniceros, Steven Eckert, and Joseph Repetti.
Moving plaintiffs? request that the court take judicial notice of the12/21/15 and 2/2/16 Minute Orders of the court herein, pursuant to? Evidence Code ? 452 (c)&(d), is granted.
Moving plaintiff counsel to provide written notice of the above rulings, forthwith.